Support NeoGAF

[blastprocessor]

Do laptops count in Form Factor? While they won't at price at this performance level, you can get laptops right now that will blow a PS4 out of the water at 1080p, go with something with a I5 or Better, SSD and a gtx765m and it will SMOKE it.

I have the GeFroce 660 OEM with 1152CUDA cores comparable to the PS4 GPU.

The 765M only has 768CUDA cores.

So no it won't smoke it IMHO.

 

[Finaika]

I have the GeFroce 660 OEM with 1152CUDA cores comparable to the PS4 GPU.

The 765M only has 768CUDA cores.

So no it won't smoke it IMHO.

How many CUDA cores does the PS4 have?

 

[livestOne]

Here's a question I have about the value of console optimisation. Say I had spent ~$1000 on a PC in 2007 and never upgraded it. How would todays games run compared to PS3/360?

I bought a thousand dollar gaming laptop in 2007 and can still run games at medium to low settings in 1440 x 900. I'd imagine if I had spent that on an actual gaming pc I could be running games well into this next gen if I didn't care about 4 k resolutions and running it at the highest settings.

 

[Flai]

Seriously? Again this crap?

Show me one game that performs two times better on consoles to comparable PC hardware. Only one.
There isnt any, but there are tons that performs similarly, even from the late generation titles.

Those quotes does not indicate and even indicated general two times better performance, they indicated that some algorithms can be faster, up to twice as fast sometimes. Thats it, stop quoting them.

Do you think games like Halo 4 or Battlefield 4 would run 720p on 2005 PC hardware? I doubt they would.

 

[velociraptor]

I'm done with You. You completely do not understand how this work.
You are wrong on every front in this post.

Ps. If You even tried to think about it for a second, You would realize that there are games with higher resolution textures on PC and they have no performance issues. And no, PC games do not store textures, they dont need in VRAM.

=========


Seriously? Again this crap?

Show me one game that performs two times better on consoles to comparable PC hardware. Only one.
There isnt any, but there are tons that performs similarly, even from the late generation titles.

Those quotes does not indicate and even indicated general two times better performance, they indicated that some algorithms can be faster, up to twice as fast sometimes. Thats it, stop quoting them.

In all fairness, no PC game from 2005/2006 looks anywhere near as good as God of War 3, Uncharted 3, or Killzone 3. These games still hold up very well today.

 

[freezamite]

Thats so inaccurate. Especially when tons of modern two cores solutions are on pair or faster than CPUs in new consoles.
Also quad-cores are becoming standard even in low end and having performance settings in games helps a lot.

---
And why would more powerful hardware cost on pair with PS4? Sony is breaking even on parts and they buy them in milions, how could a vendor that wants to make profit on hardware sell it at the same price as company that dont care about revenue from hardware, but from software?
Seriously, its simple logic.

Yes, but when you have a two cores CPU one of those cores will be devoted to the OS, while the PS4 has 5 cores totally devoted to the games it's running.
And even if quad-cores are BECOMING a standard, you need them to be a consolidated standard for the companies to take advantage of it.
In other words, I've had had a DX11 GPU since 2009 (HD5870) and it's still time for an engine made around DX11 to appear. At best I've had a couple of games with DX11 patches on them, but nothing compared to what a DX11 engine should be able to do.

If someone has already invested in a powerful PC then he can be sure it will last him tons of years, unless the PC versions of future games become so much of a mess as to make them unplayable with current hardware (which could also be a possibility).

 

[blastprocessor]

How many CUDA cores does the PS4 have?

I don't know how to compare that but in terms of performance it's 1.84 TFLOPS for PS4 GPU compared to 2.1 TFLOPS for the GeForce 660 OEM. My intention is to buy multi-platform console games for PC and it should run these fine one hopes.

 

[hoserx]

How many CUDA cores does the PS4 have?

zero.

 

[Contra11]

Same specs maybe 500 $ but same performance i'd say 750-800 $

 

[TheD]

Yes, but when you have a two cores CPU one of those cores will be devoted to the OS, while the PS4 has 5 cores totally devoted to the games it's running.

No!

PC operating systems (be it Windows, Linux, *BSD or even OSX) do not take up close to one fucking CPU core!
It is common to see sub %1 CPU usage with no programs running (and if you did the most basic of investigation by opening the task manager you would see that!)

 

[KKRT00]

Yes, but when you have a two cores CPU one of those cores will be devoted to the OS,

WTF? So how was i able to play play Crysis 2 and record it with fraps at same time in over 50fps on dual core CPU few years ago?

And about DX11 engine, both CryEngine 3 and Frosbite 3 are DX 11 engines.

-----------

In all fairness, no PC game from 2005/2006 looks anywhere near as good as God of War 3, Uncharted 3, or Killzone 3. These games still hold up very well today.

How is that even matter? 2006 hardware still runs games from 2013 on pair or faster than current gen consoles.

We had this discussion dozen of times and people still make same arguments.

-------------

Do you think games like Halo 4 or Battlefield 4 would run 720p on 2005 PC hardware? I doubt they would.

Eh, go and check facts first. For example HD 4000 performance or what 2006 and 2005 GPUs run Crysis 2 etc.

 

[CharmingCharlie]

No!

PC operating systems (be it Windows, Linux, *BSD or even OSX) do not take up close to one fucking CPU core!
It is common to see sub %1 CPU usage with no programs running (and if you did the most basic of investigation by opening the task manager you would see that!)

Yeah I was about to say that myself, no way in hell does windows have an entire core dedicated for its own personal usage. The PC platform has NEVER worked like that all cores have always been available for games regardless of what windows was doing.

Then you have to take into account that the console CPU's are only running at 1.6ghz whereas most modern PC CPU's are running at 3ghz or more (yeah yeah ghz speed isn't a definitive measurement blah blah). The CPU's in the Xbone and PS4 are netbook tier cpu's their key strength is low power and low levels of heat THAT IS IT. I know I certainly would never consider building a gaming PC with a damn AMD Jaguar CPU. Yet for some reason because Sony and MS choose Jaguar they become some sort of mythical god like thing that destroys i7's (yes that was hyperbole but not by much if you ask me).

 

[ElementJJ]

Some numbers for CPU Performance for the person arguing 2 Cores is not enough.

Cinebench R11.5

CPU Multi 64Bit
A6-1450, Radeon HD 8280G - 1.09 Points Running at 1-1.1Ghz, notebookcheck mentions that the turbo-mode only enabled 1.4Ghz under single threaded use
E2-1800, Radeon HD 7470M - 0.64 Points
A6-4455M, Radeon HD 7550M - 0.85 Points
A10-4600M, Radeon HD 7660G - 2.00 Points
i3-3217U, HD Graphics 4000 - 1.78 Points
i3-2367M, HD Graphics 3000 - 1.34 Points
i7-2630QM, HD Graphics 3000 - 4.7 Points

CPU Single 64Bit
A6-1450, Radeon HD 8280G - 0.33 Points Running at 1.4Ghz
E2-1800, Radeon HD 7470M - 0.33 Points
A6-4455M, Radeon HD 7550M - 0.63 Points
A10-4600M, Radeon HD 7660G - 0.70 Points
i3-3217U, HD Graphics 4000 - 0.76 Points
i3-2367M, HD Graphics 3000 - 0.56 Points
i7-2630QM, HD Graphics 3000 - ? Points

AMD A6-1450 8-15W TDP(Information not yet released) 28nm 4c 1.4Ghz
AMD E2-1800 18W TDP 40nm 2c 1.7Ghz
AMD A6-4455M 17W TDP 32nm 2c 2.1Ghz
AMD A10-4600M 35W TDP 32nm 4c 2.3Ghz
Intel i3-3217U 17W TDP 22nm 2c+HT 1.8Ghz
Intel i3-2367M 17W TDP 32nm 2c+HT 1.4Ghz
Intel i7-2630QM 45W TDP 32nm 4c+HT 2Ghz

So, if i read this right, its around abouts the performance of an i3 ULV chip, in pure CPU performance. Think the top AMD scorer here is only 4 Cores 4 Threads.

Desktop i3 will slaughter these numbers, but TDP is a lot higher too. That brings us to another point, PC is a lot more power hungry to achieve similar performance as consoles.

 

[Riky]

If PS4 is 2x equivalent pc hardware, with the magic of being a single spec, then why is bf4 900p and still not holding 60fps?

I honestly would like to know someone's evidence based answer to this. Single spec is supposed to ensure optimization, right? API + single spec is supposed to be 2x equivalent hardware, right? According to carmack 2 years ago, it sounds like ps4 should be capable of better.

Or is it possible that Carmack is not a prophet and his comments pertain mainly to last gen?

For the same reason that Crysis looked impossible on 360/PS3 back at the PC launch but then appeared in a perfectly reasonable condition much later. Takes time to optimise engines and these are launch games.

To anser the question I built a PC a few months back with the thought of playing next gen games, it cost £700 to build something that would take into account gains in console optimisation.

HD7870 2gb
AMD 8 Core CPU
16GB Ram
Windows 8
Wireless Card
Case
Power Supply
Gigabyte Motherboard

if I was building it today I'd probably have gone for a 7950 instead but I think it should match PS4.

 

[Nymerio]

No!

PC operating systems (be it Windows, Linux, *BSD or even OSX) do not take up close to one fucking CPU core!
It is common to see sub %1 CPU usage with no programs running (and if you did the most basic of investigation by opening the task manager you would see that!)

The funny thing is, I've had Dota running in the background while playing Crysis 3 and didn't even notice it. I've had ten games running side by side to idle for trading cards and then you have people worrying about windows hogging performance. wtf

 

[dark10x]

Why is Killzone 60 in the multiplayer but 30 in the sp?

I wish they would have locked it down at 30, but SP does actually run higher than that. It varies per level, of course, with some averaging 35-40 fps while others actually hit closer to 50-60 fps. I hate judder, though, so a solid 30 would have been preferable.

That's why the most important benchmark for me, on the PC, is the minimum framerate. If it can't hold 60 fps 95% of the time I'll usually just lock it down to 30.

How is that even matter? 2006 hardware still runs games from 2013 on pair or faster than current gen consoles.

That's not really true anymore.

 

[velociraptor]

I wish they would have locked it down at 30, but SP does actually run higher than that. It varies per level, of course, with some averaging 35-40 fps while others actually hit closer to 50-60 fps. I hate judder, though, so a solid 30 would have been preferable.

That's why the most important benchmark for me, on the PC, is the minimum framerate. If it can't hold 60 fps 95% of the time I'll usually just lock it down to 30.


That's not really true anymore.

I happily play games on PC even if they run at 45FPS. It feels smoother to me than 30FPS (which seems to cause a lot of judder on my display). I play games on a 3DTV set.

 

[alexandros]

I think it's a little early to expect real-world proof. There's simply not enough exclusive software with a decent amount of development time behind it available.

I hear this argument a lot from various people. "These are launch games, wait three years until devs get to grips with the hardware. Disregarding the fact than the PC ports of those launch games are likely equally as unoptimized, disregarding the fact that nextgen console hardware is PC based and instantly familiar to most devs, I only have this to say:

I never needed to wait three years to see the power and value of a console in previous generations. When the 360 canme out in 2006 it was instantly clear to everyone that the system was good value, that it was very powerful and quite cheap. From day one it punched way above its price range, you needed very expensive hardware to match it.

Today, in this new generation, a $180 dollar graphics card performs better than the PS4, the more powerful of the next gen consoles. Wait three years and even cheap-ass low end GPUs will surpass it. As PS4 owners like to remind XBox One users, numbers don't lie. The facts are now out there. Clinging to the notion that in a few years devs will perform magic with weak hardware is like Xbox One owners hoping that the cloud will quadruple the machine's power. It simply won't happen. Even if by some sort of metal coding miracle it does happen, it will be so late that it will not even matter.

 

[drkOne]

If you're trying to get a PC which primary use will be games:
It's going to be bigger.
It's going to cost more.
Depending on how much you invest, it most likely won't run the games that will come out "at the end of the gen".

Everyone saying "oh, but you just need to upgrade GPU", that's fucking bullshit.
Most of my friends built new PCs 4-5 years ago. Average was 600-700€, without including input/output devices.
Nowadays they have to buy more RAM to play CoD Ghosts, or Watch Dogs. Which require more than the 4GB that was pretty decent at the time.
Do they buy old and expensive DDR2? That's not future-proof at all.
So why don't we add a Motherboard to that cost?
Their CPUs are minimum for most 2014 games, so they'll be a bottleneck even if they get all that new hardware.
At that point you end up with a new PC. Note that your 5 year old hardware is worthless at that point because since then everything has gone through multiple new editions, and nobody wants your old shit.

During that time I upgraded my PC twice, which kept me playing games on High/Highest settings.
Went from a 4870 to a 5850 to a 7950. Every 2 years I ended up upgrading my PC, while selling my old system to some friend who wanted a new PC.
I shifted from mainly console to PC in 2008. Spent around 1000€ on my first setup. 500€ on upgrades since then (taking into account the old parts I sold).
I also spent 1900€ on Steam. I do have 500 games there, but digital has 0 resell value.

I won't even mention Steamboxes, pre-assembled PCs have always existed.
Comparing FLOPS on Steamboxes vs PS4 is also funny, when pretty much every dev doesn't give a shit about PC optimization and expect you to just buy new hardware.

Today, in this new generation, a $180 dollar graphics card performs better than the PS4, the more powerful of the next gen consoles.

Why would this be surprising? Too bad my graphics card can't do shit without the rest of the hardware.
Add Windows and case and you've already hit PS4 price.
Will that card perform better than the PS4 throughout the generation? Nope.

 

[alexandros]

How convenient that you disregard the thing that kills your argument in a single blow.

 

[drkOne]

How convenient that you disregard the thing that kills your argument in a single blow.

Steamboxes? I don't understand why anyone who wants that kind of thing doesn't just buy a console.

Overpaying to limit yourself on upgrades and the games you can play. No smart consumer would even look at them, sorry.

 

[MaLDo]

As PS4 owners like to remind XBox One users, numbers don't lie.

You forget 'code to the metal' and 'JC said x2 factor must be applied' trufacts than talk against you. Numbers are always ambiguous when you walk the gaming war line.

 

[dark10x]

I happily play games on PC even if they run at 45FPS. It feels smoother to me than 30FPS (which seems to cause a lot of judder on my display). I play games on a 3DTV set.

Can't stand 45 fps myself.

 

[velociraptor]

Can't stand 45 fps myself.

I don't know whether this has to do with the fact I game on a 3D display (which has more hz) than a computer monitor. (Don't have any knowledge on the matter so this could well be total bullshit, lol).

45-50 FPS has always felt superior to 30FPS to me. 30FPS games feel like a slideshow.

 

[Nachtmaer]

My GTX 460M blows it away.

The PS4's GPU? It's about as fast as a GTX 580. I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.

 

[alexandros]

Overpaying to limit yourself on upgrades and the games you can play. No smart consumer would even look at them, sorry.

I very much agree! The problem for your argument is that you just described both nextgen consoles.

Numbers are always ambiguous when you walk the gaming war line.

It seems so. It's fun though, seeing people change their stance and rhetoric so fast depending on the "opponent". It amazes me that they don't all suffer from whiplash

 

[dark10x]

Actually, you know what, there's no point in trying to have an argument here.

Clearly people around here all value very different things in regards to gaming and we will never come to a consensus. People are ignoring the flaws of both console and PC gaming alike to suit their own arguments.

There's so much disingenuous bullshit in here from all sides.

 

[CharmingCharlie]

For the same reason that Crysis looked impossible on 360/PS3 back at the PC launch but then appeared in a perfectly reasonable condition much later. Takes time to optimise engines and these are launch games.

The PC version of Crysis is still impossible on the 360/PS3. The version of Crysis that the PS3/360 ended up with was a version heavily toned down graphically to get it to work on the low end hardware. It wasn't "optimisation" that made Crysis viable on the consoles it was butchering the hell out of it graphically that made it possible on the consoles. Hell the console version didn't even meet the IQ of Crysis on low details on the PC :-

 

[alexandros]

When the 360 came out in 2005 you couldn't judge its capabilities based on ports from PS2 and XBOX nor games designed first for the PC (such as Quake 4 with its framerate spending most of its time in the teens).

I disagree. Oblivion was a PC title as well, Call of Duty 2 was a PC title, both games performed much better on 360 than they did on my PC. I saw it with my own eyes, I remember the situation very well.

Experiencing results like that from limited hardware is so much more fascinating to me than anything you can do on the PC. That's just an opinion, of course.

Look, I understand. I am also fascinated by the way devs managed to squeeze out every last bit of performance out of a piece of tech. I am fascinated by the fact that someone managed to run Doom on a calculator but, aside from a brief look out of curiosity, I'm not going to base my purchasing decisions on that or play the game on that machine. It's just not a good enough experience, not to mention all the other issues with anticonsumer practices from both console makers. I cannot and will not endorse them in that way.

 

[dark10x]

Look, I understand. I am also fascinated by the way devs managed to squeeze out every last bit of performance out of a piece of tech. I am fascinated by the fact that someone managed to run Doom on a calculator but, aside from a brief look out of curiosity, I'm not going to base my purchasing decisions on that or play the game on that machine. It's just not a good enough experience, not to mention all the other issues with anticonsumer practices from both console makers]/b]. I cannot and will not endorse them in that way.

1) You regularly play games on sub-par PC hardware. You clearly do not value the experience.

2) I can purchase retail discs on a console and play those games without ever touching the internet if I choose. That trumps everything else for me. With the way I play games there is nothing anti-consumer about the PS4.

I'm done. I cannot argue with you anymore. We disagree about everything on a fundamental level.

 

[alexandros]

1) You regularly play games on sub-par PC hardware. You clearly do not value the experience.

The part of the experience that I value is the one that allows me to customize said experience to my liking. Some console gamers like to think that PC gamers are all lording it over them with their triple Titans or whatever. This is wrong. The single best part about PC gaming is freedom of choice.

I'm done. I cannot argue with you anymore. We disagree about everything on a fundamental level.

yeah, we do. The discussion was interesting though!

 

[dark10x]

The part of the experience that I value is the one that allows me to customize said experience to my liking. Some console gamers like to think that PC gamers are all lording it over them with their triple Titans or whatever. This is wrong. The single best part about PC gaming is freedom of choice.

yeah, we do. The discussion was interesting though!

Yes, indeed. It's not worth arguing further though. I grew up on the PC, I love it, but the things I value in the PC space do not line up with what you value. We clearly enjoy it for different reasons.

I actually think the move to all digital on the PC has pushed me away, though. I really dislike giving up ownership. I've learned to grin and bear it but I don't like it. I still have hundreds of great PC games on disc from the past 20 years but it's becoming difficult to continue buying physical and most discs require a connection for installation.

 

[MaLDo]

I can purchase retail discs on a console and play those games without ever touching the internet if I choose.

It's ok you choose to play unfinished games. You lose higher resolution patches, bug patches, the end of the main plot in the form of DLC and so on. Perfect packed experiences into a cartridge was gone a lot of years ago.

 

[dark10x]

It's ok you choose to play unfinished games. You lose higher resolution patches, bug patches, the end of the main plot in the form of DLC and so on. Perfect packed experiences into a cartridge was gone a lot of years ago.

I know and it's a huge fucking loss. I detest where we're at today.

 

[ramine]

As people pointed out, you can buy an equivalent Steambox very soon.

If you wait for CES, there will be more similar PCs announced, and they will be cheaper. There are more manufacturers competing on the PC market, so prices will go down.

That said even with matching specs, the PS4 would have a (short lived) advantage because of its hardware being the same across all machines, making it easier for developers. So basically if you want a PC that's clearly superior, wait a few months and there will be tons of options. For now the PS4 is the better choice, simply because the devices from CES haven't been announced yet.

 

[twisted89]

Steamboxes? I don't understand why anyone who wants that kind of thing doesn't just buy a console.

Overpaying to limit yourself on upgrades and the games you can play. No smart consumer would even look at them, sorry.

I don't get this, how are you limiting the games you can play? Its a pc running Linux (you can put Windows on it) and therefore has a bigger library of games compared to any console.

 

[Serandur]

1) You regularly play games on sub-par PC hardware. You clearly do not value the experience.

2) I can purchase retail discs on a console and play those games without ever touching the internet if I choose. That trumps everything else for me. With the way I play games there is nothing anti-consumer about the PS4.

I'm done. I cannot argue with you anymore. We disagree about everything on a fundamental level.

At the notion that a GTX 660/any Intel quad-core PC is sub-par or as you put it earlier, "mediocre"... I'm not sure what to say other than no. If that's "mediocre" and your GTX 680/3570K rig "crappy", in which world could you ever be satisfied with the PS4's hardware? Both GPUs are a fair bit above the PS4's and even laptop Intel quads are well-above eight Jaguar cores.

The way you play games and adapt the definition of "anti-consumer" to suit it has no bearing on reality. A closed platform tied to the will of a single corporation which sticks certain core features such as online gameplay behind a paywall and locks you into proprietary, overpriced accessories with said corporation's approval being needed for anything appearing on the platform fits the very definition of anti-consumer. It takes freedom of purchase and application away from the consumer and ties them down to arbitrary premiums. There is simply no feasible angle from which to argue an open platform such as a PC isn't vastly more consumer-friendly. What company, service, or product thrives or withers on the platform is inherently decided by proactive consumer adoption and decision-making. Steam's DRM for example is skin-deep and really just a facade of courtesy simply because it is easily crackable and because Valve have no guaranteed sway over the future of the PC as a platform given they're simply one competing party on the platform. What Steam has accomplished was earned in the most pro-consumer way possible - competition and appealing to the consumer in a manner deemed desirable (massive sales I assume are a large part). Those sales could never happen on an anti-consumer closed platform and Steam has to keep being competitive or it will not survive as the dominant service forever. That is the consumer's role in a truly pro-consumer platform, steering the course through which the platform evolves and bettering it. With consoles, it's either take what the console manufacturer gives or not... fixed hardware (hardware DRM), forced paywalls, hardware failures, games being tied exclusively to that one iteration (i.e. no backwards compatibility), etc. These things are not the mark of a pro-consumer platform.

The PS4's GPU? It's about as fast as a GTX 580. I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.

Not that he/she is right about the 460M, but a 580 is quite a decent bit faster than the PS4's GPU. The PS4's GPU would be closer to a GTX 570.

 

[wildfire]

Yup. To quote John Carmack:

And Nvidia's Timothy Lottes:

This touches on a realization I've made recently about this debate.

My basic argument for PC gaming has been that even if you spend a lot more for the hardware it is a wash because you spend far less for software.

What I didn't consider is how PC performance degrades compared to a console. As new games come out the games just end up looking so much better on a console. But on a PC the newer games won't be made for them thus you need to spend more money on one maybe 2 GPU upgrades just to keep up. Over six years you are still spending more money on hardware because the value of old GPUs depreciate.

So PCs do have that problem which I didn't fully appreciate until recently.

OTOH you now pay for online multiplayer on the 2 consoles everyone is arguing in favor for so PC is still the better value unless the discounts on games that are being tied to these multiplayer subscriptions allow consoles to compete with PC game prices.

It will take a year for us to see how this will pan out with Xbox. With Playstation we know it's fairly close.

 

[KAL2006]

PC gaming is much more expensive. Also people saying you save much more money with Steam in the long run are wrong. With PS3 I barely bought games when they were new, I bought games used from the bargain bin, and resold the games after I was done, I also was a PSN+ subscriber so got free games. Gaming on the PS3 was much cheaper. I also hate that with PC among, playing online you will get destroyed by keyboard and mouse players as I like to play with a controller on the couch. Honestly PS4 is the way to go for me, it's cheaper and Nowadays Sony are more Indie game friendly with digital games, F2P,MMO's and etc.

 

[alexandros]

A closed platform tied to the will of a single corporation which sticks certain core features such as online gameplay behind a paywall and locks you into proprietary, overpriced accessories with said corporation's approval being needed for anything appearing on the platform fits the very definition of anti-consumer. It takes freedom of purchase and application away from the consumer and ties them down to arbitrary premiums. There is simply no feasible angle from which to argue an open platform such as a PC isn't vastly more consumer-friendly. What company, service, or product thrives or withers on the platform is inherently decided by proactive consumer adoption and decision-making. Steam's DRM for example is skin-deep and really just a facade of courtesy simply because it is easily crackable and because Valve have no guaranteed sway over the future of the PC as a platform given they're simply one competing party on the platform. What Steam has accomplished was earned in the most pro-consumer way possible - competition and appealing to the consumer in a manner deemed desirable (massive sales I assume are a large part). Those sales could never happen on an anti-consumer closed platform and Steam has to keep being competitive or it will not survive as the dominant service forever. That is the consumer's role in a truly pro-consumer platform, steering the course through which the platform evolves and bettering it. With consoles, it's either take what the console manufacturer gives or not... fixed hardware (hardware DRM), forced paywalls, hardware failures, games being tied exclusively to that one iteration (i.e. no backwards compatibility), etc. These things are not the mark of a pro-consumer platform.

Well said.

 

[CharmingCharlie]

What I didn't consider is how PC performance degrades compared to a console. As new games come out the games just end up looking so much better on a console. But on a PC the newer games won't be made for them thus you need to spend more money on one maybe 2 GPU upgrades just to keep up. Over six years you are still spending more money on hardware because the value of old GPUs depreciate.

But that IS NOT the case though. I have an old crappy Dualcore E6600 2.4ghz with an 8800GTS (320mb) and 2gbs of RAM as my backup PC. That thing still plays games better than the PS3/360. I tried all 3 Mass Effects on it and it never dropped below 50fps at 1080p on max details. Now compare that to the PS3/360 which never went past 720p and barely managed 30fps throughout the entire series.

Now I will admit there are one or two games the old PC cannot play principally down to those games being Dx11 but those games are still in a minority.

Now having said that a PC built today with decent hardware will NOT play games maxxed out in 6 - 7 years time but then the PS4/Xbone will not be running games comparable to the PC's graphics in 6 - 7 years time.

 

[drkOne]

I very much agree! The problem for your argument is that you just described both nextgen consoles.

A Steambox is a PC that runs Linux and that you can't upgrade. A console is a console.
Keep comparing them as if they were equal, I don't really care.

You PC guys really have an anti-console agenda… I don't get it.

 

[RandSec]

My basic argument for PC gaming has been that even if you spend a lot more for the hardware it is a wash because you spend far less for software.

What I didn't consider is how PC performance degrades compared to a console. As new games come out the games just end up looking so much better on a console. But on a PC the newer games won't be made for them thus you need to spend more money on one maybe 2 GPU upgrades just to keep up. Over six years you are still spending more money on hardware because the value of old GPUs depreciate.

Agree, but that is only start:

The point of buying or building a new PC is mostly to have it run FUTURE games. That means we have to guess now about what that future environment will be, based on the facts we know.

It is common to imagine the future to be like the present, only more so. But if we imagine that next-gen consoles will become the dominant profit-making market for developers, we have to think that developers may optimize the heck out of the console architecture. And consoles are not PC's.

Sooner or later, developers will be using console features which simply do not exist on a PC. No PC with a separate video card can be built to have those features, no matter how much "compute power" it has, or how much better the specs are. Then it may get pretty tough to port a console game to the PC.

Even if this does happen, it could take years. But, given the immediate developer response to Mantle, it is possible to imagine some game engines being optimized for consoles in months, not years. Fortunately, it should take a year or so for next-gen consoles to become the dominant market and so trigger all this. But in any case, the change might be upon us much quicker than we expect.

Not having an easy or equivalent path from console to PC may be a disappointment for developers. But it simply may be more profitable to do new work than to force a port which is no longer easy or comprehensive ...or very profitable. All of which would make our future PC somewhat less useful than we might hope.

 

[alexandros]

A Steambox is a PC that runs Linux and that you can't upgrade. A console is a console.
Keep comparing them as if they were equal, I don't really care.

One can paint as many arbitrary lines of distinction as he wishes, however this clashes with the simple (truth)facts. Are you up for a game of "spot the difference"?

Xbox One:

Playstation 4:

Steam Machine:

You know what? Now that I see them side by side, you're right. Totally different.

 

[Nymerio]

Agree, but that is only start:

The point of buying or building a new PC is mostly to have it run FUTURE games. That means we have to guess now about what that future environment will be, based on the facts we know.

It is common to imagine the future to be like the present, only more so. But if we imagine that next-gen consoles will become the dominant profit-making market for developers, we have to think that developers may optimize the heck out of the console architecture. And consoles are not PC's.

Sooner or later, developers will be using console features which simply do not exist on a PC. No PC with a separate video card can be built to have those features, no matter how much "compute power" it has, or how much better the specs are. Then it may get pretty tough to port a console game to the PC.

Even if this does happen, it could take years. But, given the immediate developer response to Mantle, it is possible to imagine some game engines being optimized for consoles in months, not years. Fortunately, it should take a year or so for next-gen consoles to become the dominant market and so trigger all this. But in any case, the change might be upon us much quicker than we expect.

Not having an easy or equivalent path from console to PC may be a disappointment for developers. But it simply may be more profitable to do new work than to force a port which is no longer easy or comprehensive ...or very profitable. All of which would make our future PC somewhat less useful than we might hope.

What kind of features are we talking about here?

A Steambox is a PC that runs Linux and that you can't upgrade. A console is a console.
Keep comparing them as if they were equal, I don't really care.

You PC guys really have an anti-console agenda… I don't get it.

I thought you could upgrade steam machines? It's basically a pc, right?

 

[KnockOneOff]

I would say costs alittle more

But I really don't. Get why people PC game, if anyone is like me they would spend all there time in the "video" options seeing how high they can push it

Then looking for texture mods, then looking for a game that could then max out my rig......?

Maybe that's just me, but that's why I don't PC game anymore, just live inside the settings without playing more than 20% of the game

 

[wazoo]

Sooner or later, developers will be using console features which simply do not exist on a PC. No PC with a separate video card can be built to have those features, no matter how much "compute power" it has, or how much better the specs are. Then it may get pretty tough to port a console game to the PC.

keep dreaming. Current next gen consoles are PC derived. There is no special feature (like the insane fillrate of ps2) that prevents the games to run on PC. That is the price console makers pay to allow at last a good ROI on their hardware.

 

[KnockOneOff]

Agree, but that is only start:

The point of buying or building a new PC is mostly to have it run FUTURE games. That means we have to guess now about what that future environment will be, based on the facts we know.

It is common to imagine the future to be like the present, only more so. But if we imagine that next-gen consoles will become the dominant profit-making market for developers, we have to think that developers may optimize the heck out of the console architecture. And consoles are not PC's.

Sooner or later, developers will be using console features which simply do not exist on a PC. No PC with a separate video card can be built to have those features, no matter how much "compute power" it has, or how much better the specs are. Then it may get pretty tough to port a console game to the PC.

Even if this does happen, it could take years. But, given the immediate developer response to Mantle, it is possible to imagine some game engines being optimized for consoles in months, not years. Fortunately, it should take a year or so for next-gen consoles to become the dominant market and so trigger all this. But in any case, the change might be upon us much quicker than we expect.

Not having an easy or equivalent path from console to PC may be a disappointment for developers. But it simply may be more profitable to do new work than to force a port which is no longer easy or comprehensive ...or very profitable. All of which would make our future PC somewhat less useful than we might hope.

I kind of agree with this post, the reason I think PC gaming caught up abit is because this console cycle went on for too long

And all the games that were created in the past few years were easy to push on a respectable PC

And they could push a little more from there solid built engines for the PC

So I do think the PC May start to suffer again in a couple of years time

Depends on the console sales I guess, and if Sony and M$ decide to switch again in 6 years time I would think the major devs would start gearing up for this in 4 - 5 years time

 

[drkOne]

I thought you could upgrade steam machines? It's basically a pc, right?

I'm not up to date on how it works.
How will you upgrade your CPU without upgrading a MOBO, if the socket changes?
How will you upgrade your GPU if it needs more power… Where will you get a PSU that fits in there?

 

[perfectsil]

thus you need to spend more money on one maybe 2 GPU upgrades just to keep up. Over six years you are still spending more money on hardware because the value of old GPUs depreciate..

it's not as if "just to keep up" with consoles is some high mark, you think you need 2 GPU upgrades in the last 6 years to keep playing games in sub-720p and sub-30 fps on PC?