It is a small price to pay to have next-gen gaming right now.
So a similarly spec'd PC will only run you $600. That's actually quite a bit cheaper than I expected. Pretty similarly spec'd to my roommate's rig as well which can run pretty much every at max settings at 1080p.
The only difference is that it won't be prioritized and optimized usage. So, I'd say closer to $800 at this time to equal up exactly while taking into account OS and similar apps always running on PC.
Obviously. I know it's not a 1:1 representation of how the systems will actually compare when it comes to the software running on it. I was talking solely about the hardware.
You can't get a case and PSU for 50 bucks that wont break in few months. Also, its GDDR3 ram. Huge price difference between GDDR5. I mean Epics developer was talking about having to build a very expensive computer to run that demo. and to him, expensive was like 3500 rig(on another topic) It's all about optimization... and author is trying to make a buzz by purposely picking a lower number
The key being 'at this time'. When the current range of PC GPUs are due to be refreshed before PS4/Next box come out, end of this year for PS4 (hoiday 2013). By the time PS4 arrives PC already moves on a little bit more with better bang for buck every generation. PS4 has something like a Radeon 7850 in it, which costs maybe $200. It is about as fast as a GTX570 was 18 months ago, which cost like $350. GTX295 was comparable to GTX570, 18 months before that too. But that cost like $700.... Expect GTX680/7970 performance which would still outstrip PS4 even considering the overheads for windows to cost maybe $200 by this time next year. I don't see a lot of point in the article. Consoles launch, get as close as they are gonna get to PC hardware, then fall behind quicker and quicker. Such is life. The difference is this time when 360 launched its GPU was nearly on par with the very best single GPU on PC around at the same time (like 7800GTX, X1800XT). Even what is inside PS4 is no match for a 7970 gigahertz or Titan- which are out....right now. Already.
"Given that the next Xbox will supposedly launch at 8GB, it only seems right that Sony also sticks in a full 8GB of GDDR 5 RAM. Impressive, but it seems like massive overkill to me, so I’ll recommend 8GB of DDR3 RAM." Why have a comparison if you're not going to do a proper comparison? Who cares if it's overkill, some people have over 16GB of RAM on their PC.
The most expensive PC graphics card costs $1000 and only has 6gb of GDDR5 memory. The PS4 will have 8gb of GDDR5 memory. For those that don't know, GDDR5 is much faster than the GDDR3 ram that you find in PCs since its use primarily on graphics cards, and the absolute latest and most cutting edge PC tech only offers 6gb of it at most, for the price of $1000. To get a PC that offers comparable performance to the PS4 will cost a lot of money, especially since you need to take into account that games running on a PC with identical specs will never run as well as their PS4 counterparts, given the OS bloat and lack of optimization on the PC platform.
@jimbo VRAM != RAM
Always with the spec and price comparisons. It'll be cheaper than $800 that's for sure. Not to mention its advantage of being optimized 1:1 because it's a console. Optimization biyatch!
Citing all this memory for PS4 is interesting, then talking about PC overheads as if none exist on console and PC is this awful ancient badly optimised mess, when it isn't. So. You think that automatic recording of gameplay is free? The compression is free? Even with some extra dedicated hardware it costs memory and CPU/GPU cycles. The dedicated hardware eases up on processing time, but doesn't suddenly make all that HD video evaporate into thin air. Needs memory. A lot of it. PS4's OS will be fairly decently sized, if you want all this instant streaming up and down, saving, uploading, fast UI overlay that was emphasised, constant controller tracking via camera, people jumping into your game and connecting, background junk etc etc. Please don't start yammering on about overheads and optimisations when you haven't thought for a second about how these consoles plan to accomplish all they said as if it costs absolutely no extra memory or reserved CPU/GPU performance. It costs performance. Wii U doesn't currently do half what sony plan their machine to do concurrently and 1GB of the main memory is reserved for the OS! Think about that for a second, Wii U reserves 1GB and you can run Windows 8 in that amount no sweat. http://images.anandtech.com... Piece of cake as they say. Sony could and almost certainly will ring fence a couple of gigabytes and a CPU core or two before the devs even start in on making their games.
This is stupid. I'm a PC gamer and I can tell you that my PC with HD 7950 and i5 will not be able to perform nearly as good as a PS4 with upcoming next generation games. It's not about specs, it's about the very different way the hardware is utilized. I know I'll be upgrading my PC for next generation, but I think I will probably end up playing even more games on PS4 this generation. It really depends on the developers and if they do away with things like screen tearing and if they improve anti-aliasing. I can handle 30fps and a few jaggies, but I can't stand screen tearing.
Yea, but Nvidia Releases optimizations every month for their cards, so that argument is kinda moot, my graphics card runs 50% faster with new drivers than it did with the drivers that were out when i bout it. Not to mention things like overclocking and general system optimization. And try not to take that as a fanboy rant, but im really sick of console gamers completely overlooking big factors of PC gaming.
PC gamers can keep building their pc's, while I'll get almost the same high quality level graphics and performance right out of the box for a cheaper price:-D
The main difference between GDDR3 and GDDR5 is the bandwidth. Of course having 8Gbs of each is very nice, but what is more important is the amount of "bit memory interface". Essentially, the bandwidth of 128-bit GDDR5 memory is equal to about 448-bit GDDR3 memory. (*rough numbers*) Now, what's even more important is that GDDR3 memory cost much less, even with a higher bit memory interface.
yo, i know you guys dont care about what i have to say, but here it is anyway. I was impressed with the kz4 video. lets remember all u pc guys, we're dealing with amd parts here. 8 cores from amd is nothing to 4 cores from intel. that being said. an 8 core amd chip despite what they have to say about performance, will not compare to a recently released intel chip. if it could compare, amd would launch some new architecture and rape intel, but those of you who have been following hardware as long as i have know that amd is posting billion dollar quarter losses due to their inability to beat intels bread and butter. in short amd's chips are cheap today, very cheap, very affordable. amds gpu's tell a similar story in regards to their battle with nvidia. Meaning they are very cheap. very affordable. Heres probably where you guys get mad. The difference between gddr3 and gddr5 is negligible. In all my years as a system builder/tester/graphics/perfor mance/whore/motiongraphicsdesig ner/overaltechspeedwhore/etc, benchmarks and general use applications and games, have failed to show more than a paltry 2-5% increase in overall throughput since the ddr revolution itself. It is more dependent on the clock of the ram itself. not the type of ram. just as 7.0 ghz ddr would outright smoke some 1000mhz gddr5, only problem is ddr is not known to be stable at that clock speed. another note is that cas latencys, have dramatically taken a shit as ddr numbers have risen. ddr2 cas latency 7 ddr 3 same price range cas latency 12. they dont tell you about cas latency though cause its just one of the 100 factors that make the ram, not just the fact that it is gddr5. remember usb 3.0 claims 300 megabytes per second, but never actually reaches it's "theorhetical" maximum it is only generally faster than usb 2.0 due to other hardware components or the fact that a pure stream of data is actually quite rare, and often is broken in to many differently sized "packets" SUPER LONG STORY SHORT This price is reasonable and whether or not you want to talk about optimization is up to you. I wouldnt expect much more as the company cannot take "TOO" much of an initial loss regardless of how much they intend to make up on game/peripheral sales.
@Autodidactdystopia You know that AMD has a long history of embedded systems chipsets, right? Or back in 2004-05 Intel was the one playing the "catch-up" game for gamers' rigs? Before you start moaning for AMD vs Intel remember two things: -The PS4 AMD CPU is x86, but the configuration in the mobo, etc is designed to eliminate bottlenecks such as connection to Northbridge and from there to RAM... -Games usually perform better on Intel as they are optimised to do so. If they allow programmers to go all the way down to CPU level with Assembly... *fun times* As for the DDR3 vs GDDR5: G stands for Graphics. They using a shared pool of GDDR not so much to have a faster bus speed, but to enable developers share textures and data between RAM and Graphics card by simply changing a reference/ pointer (as they are called in C and OpenGl/Cl). The idea behind it is eliminate the need to load texture packs, vectors or other data packs from and to the main memory and then to/from graphics memory. They are eliminate what I personally call the "limbo" state of data in the memory... The reason it is GDDR is in order not to bottleneck the graphics card by having it access a DDR RAM... I agree on the CAS however. I am programming for years now. Not in the gaming industry, but the principles remain the same. Instead of comparing specs between a PC and a just announce console, let it come out first and then moan. Optimisation both in hardware and software are important. PCs suffer from bottlenecks and how we (the developers) program on it. We are lazy, we are using for and while loops resulting unnecessary O(N) and O(NlogN) algorithms everywhere... Consoles do not as they always got less resources to work on and thus "force" you to program right. I hope I make sense to you.
Athonline Literally everything you just told me i already knew, is technical which is why i didnt post it and yet somehow it doesnt negate my point. it seems we are on the same page bro and i dont disagree with you on anything except for the fact that you think i was moaning. :) lol
My Pc now kicks the PS4 backside. My games running on my 3 gpu rig will still look better than anything on PS4.
According to many leaks and Digital Foundary who analyzed the details from their sources. no hit to performance. apparently.
I'm not wrong GameNameFame. You are talking about the recording aspects, not actually any of the other tasks and features that ALSO use resources. You aren't very specific at all, so I'll have to correct you on what I assume you are attempting (and failing) to understand. Any dedicated compression hardware takes the task away from the CPU, but it doesn't remove the fact you STILL need to use some system memory to do it, some HDD bandwidth etc You might not call it a performance hit as such, but it takes memory away that could be used for running the game. This is a stone cold fact. Unless you think that moving HD video around the system to be compressed and saved means storing that in thin air while its worked on and not in system memory somewhere? Do you? Never mind the rest of the features sony are attempting to do, just look at the list of things they want to do with it online for example, the netcode. All this other multitasking costs memory, it costs CPU cycles. PS3 and 360 reserve process threads and in the case of PS3 a whole SPE core. What Sony want to do will mean they are guaranteed to reserve at least one core on PS4 the devs cant touch for their game code. Wii U fences off half the system's entire memory....1GB for the OS and various other processes. Do you think Sony and Microsoft won't reserve a big chunk of their system memory as well for their pretty busy looking OS and UI overlays? Remember how they emphasised that gamers now want things fast, they want games on and off fast, background downloading and installing, they want fast responding content and menus. That means having a bunch of resources held in reserve. Just how it is.
Gotta agree with cgoodno on this (in fact, I'd raise it to $1000). Developers can take advantage of console's closed environment easier and exploit it
Agreed, probably $1000. Mark Rein was excited about the PS4 running things that he said were extremely expensive to accomplish on PC not too long ago.
@Megaton: It's also the question of what resolution they were using and what was the average framerate. If it was running with 30fps at 720p, then it cannot come close to the PC version (which ran at 1080p and 60fps)
I have to disagree. It's grossly overstated how much an OS will actually impact a piece of hardware's performance. My OS usually uses about 1-3% of my cpu, and maybe 600 megs of ram. This was true in the days that a pc barely had enough ram to run the OS, but these days have long since passed.
Whatever PS4 can do, PC can probably already do it. It just needs to devs to step it up for most PC versions. Watchdogs for example- nothing I saw there couldn't be done on EXISTING pc hardware. Hell when it was first shown last year people were impressed, but their heads weren't exploding like omggg how is this possible! We know it is possible on PC already. If I am truthful, same goes for any game you care to point out. Look at the car models of Project CARS and tell me that Driveclub's are much better. Clearly they aren't. http://www.gamepur.com/file... This isn't a photo BTW. Thats Project CARS in realtime, which you can play in beta form. Right now. On PC. Look at Killzone and tell me it is better than Crysis 3 on a quality PC. http://images7.gry-online.p... Yes, the game actually looks like this on a good PC! http://www.abload.de/img/cr... Really, it wasn't. Crysis 3 looks ridiculous on a PC, and that game is out, RIGHT NOW! Not in a year or whenever Killzone might launch. Don't get me wrong many of the games were impressive, and exciting. But just don't tell me that I haven't seen the capability or the quality already. I am a PC gamer. I have. Just look at the two pictures provided...
@computersaysno. The PC can most definitely run those games. The most high-end PC hardware from 2010 can even run the games from the PS meeting today. But what we're comparing to right now is the longevity and cost of owning a console compared to a PC. As a side note, I AM IN NO WAY trying to thrash the PC in any form. I was once a PC gamer and my rig from 2006 still stands. The reason why the PS4 or any console for that matter makes the news compared to the PC is simply because they can do it for cheaper. As an allusion, take for example the ownership of a 90s high end luxury vehicle compared to a modern econocar. The luxury vehicle would likely have had many of the things the econocar had ages before. But the cost of maintaining yields high. I would be flattered to own a PC that can run games such as Watchdogs at 60+ FPS on a PC costing less than $500(The maximum rumoured price of the PS4). But that just isn't possible because the PC has so much more potential than to just play games. TL;DR: It's great to be a PC gamer if you have the sufficient funds. But if you don't, the console is a great way to be a part of "next-gen".
You'll pay more now to get top end visuals on a PC, but that is the point made. You can have them. Now. As long as you wanna pay. But also as pointed out above, the hardware gets cheaper for the same performance over time. It will certainly be cheaper by the time PS4 arrives to get the visuals seen. Titan costs stupid amount now but in a year that kind of performance chances are will be half that cost. The cards a bit slower than it half their costs as well. Neverending cycle. Year after ps4 launches pc hardware will proper muller the new consoles and not be ludicrously expensive to achieve that.
Really? where you getting this from, cause consoles sure didn't use the mighty cell to keep up with PC games that are 6+ years old. heck they couldn't even Run ARMA II, not to mention games like Dirt 1 still look better on PC then most new console games. The problem here is you are all idiots who don't understand basic computing.
its been shown over and over that a similarly speced pc will not get the results that the console gets.
I dont think i can agree with that, hardware that is considered similarly spec'ed to an xbox 360 is still viable for gaming at similarly quality (settings) and resolution as an xbox 360 for multiplats released. For example, a nvidia 8800gt is extrememly comparable to an xbox 360 in horsepower, were talkin at max a 10% difference in power. Yet an 8800gt will still run any multiplat as well or better than an xbox at 720p. I think that the misconception comes from the fact that PC standards keep going up and Console standards stay the same, like 1080p is PC standard these days, Consoles generally are at Sub HD. Or settings in games are getting higher and high in quality, 6-7 years ago maxing out a game was equal to an xbox version, now the console version is equal to medium or low settings. You are expecting more out of PC hardware than you are out of console hardware and claiming that consoles are more optimize, Oh, an xbox right now is better than an 8800gt? Maby if you expect the 8800gt to max out BF3 and run its at 1080p the console will be better. But if you run it at 720p with a mix of medium and low settings, you will see that an 8800gt is still very comparable to an xbox.
yes the 8800 is the minimum requirement to even run battle field and youll get a comparable experience on low with frame rate drops. The 8800gt is definitely an upgraded hardware but cant out preform the 360. Battlefield was a game made and heavily optimized for pc also, were not talking halo 4. plus your just bringing up gpus. Its impossible to compare with out taking into consideration cpu, ram, and power usage. When a game is optimized like halo gears killzone or uncharted then they will easily look better than comparable hardware on a pc game. Just ask any developer. The system can be optimized and doesn't have to run windows. Not to mention, the ps4 will be cheaper than a comparable setup when it comes out and will be able to play every game perfectly for the next 8-10 years.
The problem is its hard to find a pc dumbed down enough to match the consoles at the time they launch. You may get a crappy dell your mom may buy but even a crap low end gamimg pc will match or pull ahead of any console game. Take any pc put a 100 dollar graphics card in it and it will beat a console period. People said the power of the cell all last gen. But the PC i built my little sister with a ATI 4870 1G in it had way more performance than any ps3 or xbox game. That little card would max any game she put in it untill BF3 came out. Any other game would be on ultra settings i cant believe that card lasted like 5 years and it kicked ass. When the price of 4870's dropped down to like 20 dollars i bought sis a second one and those 2 ran BF3 beta on ultra at 30 fps. It would chug on metro but metro is a mess of a game.
It can't be directly compared because it uses GDDR5, the GPU is pretty much still unknown at this point, and other unseen costs on the board. So no, a $600 PC isn't quite the same. For a guy who's big on PC gaming, I thought you'd factor that in at least.