Approvals 10/3 ▼
solidsnakejej (1) - 1761d ago Cancel
Pozzle (4) - 1761d ago Cancel
jaredhart (3) - 1761d ago Cancel
CaptainofCrush (2) - 1760d ago Cancel

How PS4 Could Overpower a More Powerful PC

E-mpire writes: Some have criticized Sony for abandoning the exotic, custom processors they have usually used in their PlayStation consoles for more standardized "off the shelf" PC parts. They have drawn up comparisons with how much money it would take to buy an equally powerful PC and how capable that PC, and therefore assuming PS4, is using benchmark software. These comparisons are not valid, and this is not a disadvantage for Sony. I'll explain why.

Create Report !X

Add Report


✔ Fixed
Wrong story type
Should be Opinion piece
This is based on some personal opinion. Please change story type from article to opinion piece.
BillySpandex1761d ago WhoDisagree(1)Agree(1)
+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)


Changed from Pending to Approved
Community1760d ago
The story is too old to be commented.
zeal0us1761d ago

This whole PS4 PC comparison is getting dumb.

If you want exclusives from studios like Santa Monica, Naughty Dog or etc get a PS4.

If you want sheer power,mods, titles that don't show up consoles, build yourself a pc or buy one from a respectable manufacturer.

fr0sty1761d ago

PC gamers are used to saying "my rig can beat that" when a new console is announced, but as this article explains, that isn't always the case. Being faster on paper and faster in practice are 2 different things.

When John Carmack can't think of anything negative to say about PS4's architecture, you know Sony has done it right.

ProjectVulcan1760d ago (Edited 1760d ago )

Why all the comparisons to PC anyway? PC always wins in the end, consoles can only ever compete performance wise in the very short term.

You buy a console, it stays the same. You buy a PC, you can change it.

Are people that paranoid.

PC has such superior hardware that regardless of the advantages of a fixed platform it'll be able to beat up the consoles be it in 6 months or 12 or 18.

Usually sooner rather than later. In this case PS4's spec is just fine, but already we have PC hardware more powerful and we are a good 9 months from PS4 launch it seems- probably even longer until half of those games demoed last night actually come out too.

Its only a matter of time so why fuss about it.

The article is actually incredibly crap, making assumptions about pricing when we have no clue how much a PS4 actually costs or how much its games might cost etc etc.

PS4 is much better value easily!!!!

So the retarded article claims.

Is it? How do you know? How much are the games each?

Yawn. Bad 'journalism'.

decrypt1760d ago (Edited 1760d ago )

"Being faster on paper and faster in practice are 2 different things."

8800GTX says hi, was faster on paper and was faster in practice when compared to the PS3.

Its funny but the PS3 in comparison to the PS4 was much more up to date in terms of tech at that time.

PS3 had the RSX which was comparable to 7800 series of that time and it had a CPU that could help in graphics too.

What does the PS4 have, its got a 7850 equal GPU, which is midrange by todays standard. By the time PS4 launched 7850 will be low end. Its got a X86 CPU from AMD, practically any PC gamer in todays time Lols at AMD CPUs(as Intel is so much better).

PS3 was no match for a dual core CPU equipped with a 8800GTX. I would think by the time PS4 launches it will fare even worse against GPUs of late 2013, mid range GPUs will walk all over the PS4. Something that took 8800GTX to do to the PS3, while 8800GTX was high end for its time.


Competely agree, console gamers are in denial if they think PS4 will be anywhere close to a PC.

By the time Geforce Titan and 8970 are out. Mid range GPUs will be stomping what is in the PS4.

Its going to be a repeat of just how 8800GTX till date beats current consoles. Plays just about every game out there in 1080p, Mean while consoles play just about every game out there in 720 or below.

darthv721760d ago

its the word "temporarily" in the title.

consoles can come out on par or in some cases exceed what is the Pc equivalent at the time. But that does not last.

PC tech is constantly evolving with roughly a 6mo or less turnaround on some parts like the CPU and GPU. A console has to retain the same form and function for several years.

The typical time frame of a console is roughly 5 years from launch is when new work is begun on any kind of follow-up. Within that time, PC tech can exceed consoles by a significant margin. But that margin also comes at an increased cost where as a console remains the same throughout. In many cases....the console is cheaper.

But the viscous cycle begins again with the next console release. Like the rumored specs of the 720 and those of the PS4 having 8gb of memory. My gaming PC only has 4gb but then again, I built it back in 08 when that was probably sufficient. Since then i turned my attention to consoles. Actually, my attention never left consoles but periodically I turn towards the PC and build a newer one now and then.

With the recent PS4 and upcoming 720, it may make building a new game rig a bit less appealing. Especially when the tough part of which cpu/gpu to get has been decided for you. Games will get better graphically than what we saw yesterday. That much is a given.

I know I dont have the $$ for that brand new Nvidia Titan (or whatever it was called) but i can certainly afford a Ps4 or 720 and be able to enjoy the games released for it/them. Will I be missing out on what a super high end PC is capable of???? Yes but only for 5-6 years and then a new console will come out to equate to whatever is close to the top at that time.

I can live with that. I have been since Pong and every subsequent console release.

OpenGL1760d ago


The Radeon 8970 will be out before the PS4 is, and it is quite a bit faster than the GPU in the PS4. Heck, the Geforce GTX Titan is already much faster, as are the Radeon 7970 and GTX 680.

It's a console though, it's not all about power.

sonic9891760d ago

thats what i was saying for like what 10 years
thats why i study computer science and i am super excited for the ps4 also having a strong network like ps cloud on your side can scare any pc right away its no longer my rig is better than yours it will be my provider is better than yours .
yes direct pc to console comparisons are BS at its finest form pc gamers always try to put those up as gaming superiority but in real life there is optimization and whole lot of stuff to over come on pc to produce console like games
i remember my pentium 4 pc being outperformed by the original xbox without breaking a sweat lol.
and yeah we game on microsoft OS so do microsoft look like morons to dish out the next xbox and make it look last gen compared to pc of course no they would kill the pc gaming just to make their xbox succeed ( and its called business )

guitarded771760d ago

At fr0sty... that is oh so true. Check out the link I'm providing to top super computer speeds and look at their architecture. We are reaching a plateau of sorts in chip architecture, and we are seeing programming having an even greater role in overall speed. A better algorithm is becoming more important than actual hardware in many respects. The difference between PS and console will be bridged this coming gen by programming techniques.

Enemy1760d ago

Look at the exclusives the PS3 already has. The best of'em are easily comparable to anything on PC. Developers showed us the PS3 for what it is, and it'll be the same all over again with the PS4. This time developers have more power than was expected.

PS3's 512MB split RAM vs PS4's 8GB unified GDDR5

It all comes down to what the developers are doing. Raw power means nothing without games to show it, and this is where Sony always wins.

slayorofgods1760d ago

Why the comparison's?

Ahh, so we can see the power of the new PS4.. How else are we going to truly understand the specs of the system at this point in time.

That being said the PS4 specs are good.. They may push a few pc gamers to upgrade their rig to stay modern.. The PS4 does have a 8 core processor, a lot of pc gamers have a quad core. So these are all good things that will push pc gamers to keep up..

I think people need to quit getting so offended.. It's not like comparing a pc to a ps3 is sac-religious...

slayorofgods1760d ago


Well obviously 1000 dollar gpu's like the Titan are going to be better then the PS4 form factor GPU.

The 1000 dollar Titan is faster then the vast majority of pc gamers gpu's.. Most people are going to spend 200 dollars max, check amazon's best sellers. The titan is way behind the 200 dollar gpu's.

BitbyDeath1760d ago

PC is ahead in tech itself but as for games using that tech PS4 will be ahead. PC will obviously overtake it eventually but maybe not til Crysis 4 arrives.

ProjectVulcan1760d ago (Edited 1760d ago )

The problem is slayerofgods the comparisons are usually rubbish because most of the people here have no clue what they are talking about.

Take your short note of PS4 having an 8 core processor and PC owners not having so many cores.


Those 8 cores are AMD Jaguar based according to every source. Which means they are very, very slow relative to any full size desktop X86 quad core you care to name from the past 5 years.

Jaguar is a low power architecture designed for the likes of tablets, the cores are extremely tiny and aren't even close to the ops per clock of a fully fledged desktop part like an Intel 2500k, or i7 920, or Phenom 2 quad for example.

CPU performance is essentially ops per clock x Clockspeed.

Jaguar's ops per clock are a fraction of lets just say a 4 and a half year old Intel i7 920 quad core.

Its clockspeed is considerably less than said i7 920.

Thats means much less ops x much less clockspeed = nowhere near as fast.

It has twice the cores but a fraction of the actual performance. Even if Jaguar is twice as fast per core as Bobcat (not even close...) then you are still only talking about 20 gigaflops. Intel i7 920 easily knocked out 40+ 4 and a half years ago.

But no, lets just be ignorant over that and pretend that the 8 core in the PS4 is somehow better than everything in a decent desktop PC, when in fact it is considerably inferior.

People either don't understand or rather not listen to God's honest truth. So why even bother comparisons?

starchild1760d ago

The author is correct on all those points.

Even more important, however, is the fact that the gaming industry basically revolves around the consoles.

There are virtually no developers making high-end games exclusively for the PC. The Witcher 2 was the last of a dying breed...and even that eventually went to consoles.

I am a PC gamer, but I'm not an idiot. Specs are meaningless in an ultimate sense; all that matters is what is actually achieved.

There are PS3 exclusives that in a general way still look better than most PC games. Sure, the PC games can have higher resolution and framerate, but they aren't fundamentally better in terms of textures, lighting, geometry, etc.

Now that next gen console games will likely output at 1080p resolution and will have plenty of memory to provide better anti-aliasing, the PC advantages will be even smaller. PS4 games will likely set the bar for some time to come.

Computersaysno1760d ago (Edited 1760d ago )

You're talking rubbish starchild. Probably why you only have one bubble.

PC games have been superior technically for years. Games dont even have to be high end on current Pc hardware to trounce what is on Ps3.

Textures, lighting and geometry not being better on Pc?

Please, get real. Consoles rarely use better than 512 x 512 textures where 1024 x 1024 is extremely common for Pc versions and 2048 x 2048 more common now as well. Ps3, 360 struggle to do proper HDR in more complex games or quality dynamic shadows. Usually no sweat for Pc versions.

Often the geometry is the same on ports, but these days anything with DX11 usually has stacks more polygons than whatever is on console. Batman, BF3, Deus Ex, Crysis 3, Dirt 3, Far Cry 3, Medal of Honour yadda yadda. Loads.

You might actually know this if you were really a Pc gamer.

To a point consoles are the lowest common denominator but as soon as Pc hardware allows you always end up with a bare minimum of the same assets but more res, more frames.

New consoles are super win for Pc because ps4 is built very similar to a Ps4 in many key aspects. Design a game for ps4 and port it so easily to Pc.

slayorofgods1760d ago (Edited 1760d ago )


You have a semi good point. There is no listing for the exact clock speed of the 8 core cpu, but one can come to the conclusion its faster than the Cell processor (at least).

O.K. so you got me on the fact the PS4 is using a tablet like cpu on top of the form factor like GPU. But you don't quite have me on the overall power of the 8 core processor (pretty sure I said 8 core and not 8 core with hyper-threading BTW)since you yourself can only speculate..

But, on a agreeable note I would like to know more about the new cpu such as overall power and speed.

And if I'm missing something feel free to correct me, I still think it is fair to be able to compare a ps4 to a pc, surly that isn't impossible.

ProjectVulcan1760d ago (Edited 1760d ago )

If you read anandtech technology website who has talked to Sony about the hardware, they confirm it is in fact an 8 core AMD Jaguar based processor.

We actually know quite a lot about Jaguar as in the low power microarchitecture. We don't know the precise clockspeed of the part inside PS4, most sources put it at about 1.6 - 1.8ghz. This is highly likely to be true (Bobcat and Jaguar just aren't designed for high clockspeeds 3ghz+ etc), because we know that the previous AMD Bobcat line are similar and that Jaguar will have only slightly increased clocks for PC applications.

I do have you on the overall power of the processor, because we know how fast Bobcat cores are, we know that Jaguar is at most a modest percent increase over that according to AMD themselves- (fourth paragraph down, 15+ percent better ops per clock, 10+ percent clock for roughly 25-30 percent increase give or take)

We know that there are 8 of them and that typically a 4 core application has 2mb of cache at most as per the design philosophy. Which means an 8 core version with 4mb cache, best case.

We know what Bobcat can do, we know what Jaguar should do according to AMD, and so by a little bit of extrapolation we know roughly what PS4's CPU can do.

That is to say, not set the world on fire. It is adequate, but absolutely and categorically no match for even an older desktop Intel or AMD quad core.

Jaguar simply is not in the same category as full size desktop processors.

Even an 8 core Jaguar is like a family hatchback lining up against the Intel and AMD hypercars you see in desktop computers. Nothing wrong with the hatch as a vehicle, but lets at least understand it is not a firebreathing monster.....

guitarded771760d ago (Edited 1760d ago )

@ vulcanproject

Yes, but like you said, we don't know the clock speed. We also don't know the instruction set architecture (customized I presume) for the PS4, which is just as important as the clock speed.

We can also assume that the GPU will handle a lot of the dirty work. Unless we have access to the documentation of the hardware, and software running the machine, all we can do is speculate about a comparison.

I've said it a thousand times... what's on paper (specs), doesn't mean much. The architects behind the machine aren't morons. They're probably pretty damn smart, and as such probably took a lot into consideration including price, power, efficiency, performance, etc, etc into account when designing the PS4's hardware, ultimately building a highly competent environment for game and app developers.

I understand your argument; I see you know what you're talking about. And since you do know what you're talking about, you certainly know that the PS4 is a highly capable machine for a home console, and will be able to handle just about anything, any major developer will throw at it (sure, eventually there will be exceptions as the hardware ages). With your knowledge, I also believe that you know better than to just read hardware specs and assume... you also know the GPU has a butt-tom of ALU's to take stress off the CPU. Like I said, without official documentation, or someone cracking a system, we really don't know. Just Sony and their devs know. But suggesting that the PS4 is a weak machine by today's (and the near future's) gaming standards is silly.

ProjectVulcan1760d ago (Edited 1760d ago )

Guitarded77, dude we know enough to make an accurate theory. This is like someone saying well you can't say for SURE that the Sun's surface is hot because you have never been there.

True, but the vast amount of evidence and knowledge we have accumulated indicate that indeed the sun is hot lol.

We know that the chip is a monolithic part which indicates Sony can't aim for very high CPU clockspeeds unless they want to scrap most of them. We also know that the architecture the chip is based on simply is not designed for high clockspeed, high thermal dissipation etc.

Its designed to be more energy efficient. Fairly obvious console makers are more interested in that, after the problems with thermal dissipation experienced trying to build uber machines previously....

If it was more about raw performance than efficiency and cost- they wouldn't have chosen Jaguar at all. They would have chosen a Piledriver based design because even 4 or 6 clusters would demolish anything based off Jaguar.

We know that the instruction set is X86- it can't be anything else. Its either X86 or its not, they say it is. To call it X86 is must have the tightly governed set of highly developed instructions. You can have minor additions but nothing that would dramatically improve its performance beyond what we know of Jaguar.

It is what it is, a bottle rocket is a bottle rocket is a bottle rocket no matter how many fins you put on it, it is not Saturn V.

Nobody suggested that the PS4 is actually a weak machine, just that its parts are absolutely not firebreathing monsters.

A console can be more than the sum of its parts, but the fact that the main components of the system shares a lot of similarities with PC hardware gives us easy comparison to its relative maximum performance.

guitarded771760d ago

@ vulcanproject

I'm not saying that it probably isn't the case... I agree with the thermal dissipation part (I was thinking the same thing). What I am saying is even though the PS4 may not be the very top tier of available hardware, it is in the upper-mid range, and the architects had to make it cost effective while offering the most power possible.

We may have an idea, but and computer scientist, or scientist in general knows that ideas mean null until you put the idea to work. The PS4 may have limitations like every piece of hardware, but those limitations will be the standard for 99% of games over the next 5-6 years. And the PS4 is a capable machine when it comes to making some pretty impressive games, and I assume multitasking with all that extra RAM.

slayorofgods1760d ago

Well Vulcan you may have a broader knowledge base in chip set architecture then I do. Actually I'm glad to know more about the cpu performance, these are things I didn't have at my disposal as I didn't have as many sources about the jaguar cpu. I'm not going to sit here and debate the overall clock speed as it may still be slightly above your estimated 1.8ghz. I will concur its not going to be at a standard gaming rig 3+ghz.

Still you don't have me at the why compare it to a pc debate though... I'm a pc gamer, I was a PS3 gamer until I got the ylod. Of course I'm curious to know future specs of gaming. There are questions when a new generation comes out and as a gamer I want to stay current. I'm part of the AMD quad core gaming circle, and with 8 core cpu's becoming affordable I have to question whether it is a good idea to upgrade or if the quad will stay current for a few years. I'm sticking to my guns on the comparison's being important.

+ Show (16) more repliesLast reply 1760d ago
shutUpAndTakeMyMoney1760d ago (Edited 1760d ago )

ps4 is looking hot. PC will be better after maybe 2 years but still if ps4 is really $429 then ps4 has more value than a that said they can build a ps4 for $600 without bluray, controller, camera & cloud features + the cost of windows.

Also the fact that devs can code ps4 even with assembly if they wanted to and it would work on all ps4's. PC is less efficient for a nerd who would like to program at the lowest level.

Computer syetems from a programmers perspective.. Good book I am reading.

SkyGamer1760d ago

Match a 1.6 ghz eight core? really? An ivy bridge quad core would run circles around that prissy cpu ALREADY found in LAPTOPS. Laptops! Serious? GDDR5 is not the same as DDR5. GDDR5 is found in MOST video cards at the 2gb variety. nVidia's newest flagship has 6 GB GDDR5 just for the video card itself!

Twignberries1760d ago

Um... you keep thinking that buddy. Just because a super high end pc may be out of you're reach/ too complicated to maintain for you feeble little mind, doesn't mean they aren't already far superior to ps4.. Are we really that gullible to fall for the old sony hype train once more? You do realise the whole 4k thing only applies to movies yeah? The console is only capable on 1080p 60fps. This makes it already lame in comparison as pc is capable of 4k GAMING right now. Do your research and stop being ignorant of the truth, just accept it.

If you want to play on consoles thats perfectly fine, but dont try to pretend they are technically superior, because they are not and they never will be because if they were, it would be going against its original business model, and would not make any money because they'd be waaaaaaay to expensive to produce

Temporary1760d ago

It already overpowers it, with better games.

8GB_DDR5RAM1760d ago Show
iamgoatman1760d ago

"2 of the biggest games we've seen in decades."

You serious? Another Killzone and Infamous are now considered 2 of the biggest games in decades? I wouldn't even call them the biggest games of the YEAR!

But after that last part and you're name, obvious troll is obvious.

Temporary1760d ago (Edited 1760d ago )

Even I dont agree with what ^^^ said. Killzone and Infamous are by no means the best games in decades ... but they are very good games, especially Infamous for being a brand new IP and set the benchmark for action sandbox graphics and quality.

The PS4 just has a better variety of game developers and will see more quality games by FAR than any high end PC.

If you can own both thats the way to go, but if you can only do 1, the PS4 would be more bang for your buck.

iamgoatman1760d ago

"set the benchmark for action sandbox graphics and quality."

Your opinion, and I highly disagree.

"The PS4 just has a better variety of game developers and will see more quality games by FAR than any high end PC."

And you're basing this on what exactly? Quality of games is entirely subjective. What you've said is complete and utter nonsense.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1760d ago
ephoenix61760d ago

people also say that the pc gives greater control, but that a console controller is more comfortable, and a system is more economical because you only have to pay for the hardware every 5 years or so, and there's a much larger lineup of console games

Ducky1760d ago

Well, console controllers work on PC as well, and the economical argument swings either ways because games are much cheaper on PC, but on the other hand, the console hardware has longer legs.

The game lineup goes down to tastes, as both the PC and console have a comparable lineups but some genres are only popular on consoles, while others only on PC.

Safest bet is to get both, but I'd imagine that even someone who only owns either platform would be happy with what's available to them.

duplissi1760d ago

a console is more economical in the sense that you pay less up front but the games are much more expensive.. besides that most people will end up buying a second console because they have terrible lifespans.. so where are the savings again? ive spent 600 totall on xbox 360 consoles and 900 totall on my ps3's... went through 2 each.

the last two pc games i purchased: far cry 3 and tomb raider were both about 32 bucks. most pc games are in the 15-25 range in less than a year following release.

its like saying you will save money by renting from rent a center...

saint_seya1760d ago

i bough demon souls and king of fighters xiii for 19$ and 14$ on the psn store, and theres a lot more games in that range.. idk what your point is..

duplissi1760d ago

I meant NEW games, and my example for pc games were newly released games. as in games less than 6 months old.

If you plan to stay current with games as they come out having a pc is cheaper. I preordered and paid off tomb raider to the tune of 33 dollars, and tomb raider isnt even out.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1760d ago
TopDudeMan1760d ago

Or get both, because while you love gaming on your PC, you gotta get dat naughty dog exclusive.

Swiftcricket1760d ago

This. You don't have to limit yourself to one platform. I play my PC for it's exclusives or if I want to play with some mods, or my PS3 for it's exclusives or if I want to play with my friends since they don't play on PC. Best of both worlds.

duplissi1760d ago

pretty much.

the exclusives are why, even after switching primarily to pc i will still get consoles.

Sarcasm1760d ago

This article actually gives very good insight though to the argument.

The way the PS4 is structured is not like a traditional PC.

So people cant be like "Well I have this CPU and that GPU, so it's the same as a PS4"

And again, developers will utilize 100% of the resources of the PS4 strictly for gaming. A PC isn't designed to do that. It is designed to do everything, thus needs all the extra resources.

If for some reason developers made PC's use 100% of its resources, then my i7 would be taxed 100% of the time. But the reality in most games situations, I've seen barely as much as 40% in the most demanding multi-threaded titles, one being Crysis 3. Most other titles will use 2-4 threads and barely scratch the surface.


clearelite1760d ago (Edited 1760d ago )

I took the time to read your comment and and you are correct.

People throw around a lot of terminology, but very few PC games use more than a few gigs of ram unless you are playing at some absurd resolution or on multiple monitors.

For 1080P gaming on PS4, if devs work directly with that architecture, and fully utilize most of that 8GB GDDR5, then the results will be mind blowing.

You are correct about processor utilization as well. Look at Planetside 2's lopsided processor workload for proof. It is a game that is becoming further optimized and improved. Devs given time to work with the PS4 will become familiar with it's architecture, evenly distribute workload throughout processors, and squeeze more power out of each core.

jmc88881760d ago

No you are forgetting some major issues with your logic.

No consoles don't use 100 percent, just like a PC.

Can they? Sure. Do they? Rarely.

Also you think that OS with all the useless bloated features in the PS4 is running on pixie dust?

Hint: Console overhead is much higher then in the past. That 'plus' disappeared majorly with the 360/PS3. It's now about all gone with the PS4/720.

The same thing will happen in consoles. You have an i7, that's what it's only pushing 40 percent. Wait a couple more years and it'll go higher. You have a CPU far better than a PS4.

You also forget that PC gaming has been held back by consoles. Which is what happens. So for you to say PC games don't get maxed out, wrong.

With the launch of the new consoles, PC users will get games that properly utilized more of the resources.

How do you not understand that. If you had a PS5 running PS4 games and said, hey, this isn't taxing my PS5 system thus a PS4 is better, that's not a very sound argument.

40 percent on Crysis 3 is alot more than a PS4 can output. So on games like that yeah, PS4 will utilize 100 percent, because it HAS to.

What has been going on with the PC games in the end of 'last gen consoles' is not the same of what will happen in the beginning and middle stages of 'next gen consoles'.

Sarcasm1760d ago

^I understand what you are saying.

It's not an Apples to Apples comparison.

Which is actually what I'm preaching. It just so happens most don't understand the differences.

Yes my 2600k at 4.4Ghz will probably get more of a work out in the future. But I'm stating for the past 3-4 years of PC gaming, even an i5-760 is still relevant TODAY.

But currently developers making games for PC are limited in SCOPE. Meaning, they can't make a game that will tax 100% of CPU resources for ALL PC Hardware out there. IF they did, then PC games would probably be literally 5 times better than modern games of today.

The reason I used Crysis 3 as an example, is because currently it is the most demanding title I've seen to date and yet only utilizes at MOST 40% of my CPU, with average probably more around 30%.

But it isn't just CPU usage, RAM is important too when it comes to game development. Again, the only time I've seen my GTX 680GB allocate its full 2GB of VRAM is in Crysis 3 (in 1080P). For the past year, nothing even came close.

So we have all this wonderful PC hardware that isn't tapped, because PC developers never felt like it needed to.

My whole point is that PC gamers and gamers in general need to realize that the PS4 is much more relevant and powerful than some are giving credit for.

If the rumored specs of the NeXtBox are true, then it will have 8 threads and a GPU too. So now we know PC games developers HAVE NO MORE EXCUSES to push PC hardware. And I'm not talking about just numbers, but efficiency in coding.

Man I haven't been this excited in awhile though talking about games lol

ratcop221760d ago

This console will probably do Mods. And the power is no slouch future proof.

TechnicianTed1760d ago

'This console will probably do Mods.'

I very much doubt it.

a_squirrel1759d ago (Edited 1759d ago )

I seriously hope there will be support for mods. If it's a developer's console, (and if you know anything about BF1942-BF2) you'll see that developers like modders.

What they don't like are cheaters. The only way to get modding, is to regulate it somehow, and it 'may' be more trouble than they want to go through.

J_Cob1760d ago

Yea, it would be like my '95 self comparing my then PC specs to the PS1. PC's were even more advanced than consoles back then, but it didn't matter. It was about gaming and having fun.

Martywren1760d ago

@zeal0us i totally agree with u.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1759d ago
piroh1761d ago (Edited 1761d ago )

PC games are made for weaker computers in mind to sell the most, PS4 can unleash raw power. also Windows is hell of a brake for games. even PS3 exclusives look amazing and it´s 6 years old machine although i´m not saying anything bad on PC. it´s great fun for occasional gamers

SephirothX211760d ago

I'm impressed with PS4. I didn't think it would be as powerful but I disagree that PC gaming is for occasional gamers. I'm a hardcore gamer and I play most multi games on pc. My pc is already far more powerful than PS4. Sure Windows might take up more memory than a console's operating system but most processes in Windows can be turned off while playing. Consoles can never touch PC. Just this month, the GTX Titan was released which is currently the fastest gpu in the world. The PS4 gpu will be on par with a GTX 580 at around 1.84 tera flops. The GTX Titan has 4.5 teraflops.

Having said that, such power is unnecessary at this point and quite expensive. The main thing is that PS4 is a massive leap over PS3 and with UE4, we will see games take advantage of powerful PC hardware. The PS4 looks like the premium console for hardcore gamers and mainly for its exclusives, I'll be buying one on release. A lot to look forward to.

jmc88881760d ago

Not really. Each game is different.

Some games are made with PC's in mind, or mostly in mind.

Other games are made with last gen in mind and ported over.

True the devs want to make sure weaker computers can play the games, but that's why there's a tens of thousands if not more combination settings (permutations) in PC settings.

So when you load up a PC game you'll have

low textures
medium textures
high textures
very high textures
ultra textures

Then about 5-20 something other things with the same or close to it options.

Some might just have 3 options for a particular settings. A few will have more. Some might just be a checkmark. Things like FOV will be on a slider.

So really, they have lower end PC's in mind, but generally even the lowest PC settings these days are above that of a 360/PS3

People forget that the minimum specs aren't the minimum specs. You generally can get away with far lower than the minimum specs suggest.

PLUS 360/PS3 were gaming in 588-604p resolution for most games.

I don't think there are resolutions that low anymore on most games. Thus higher specs are a result of a higher quality bottom then consoles get.

People claim it's all about optimization, that's bs.

Optimization gains you at most 50 percent, and even then, as time goes on the PC driver updates reduce that difference, and thus overall the optimizations are mostly a bit overblown.

The only real advantage now is the design having all the parts closer together and thus lower latency allowing more to happen because each part waits less. But that's really only about 50 percent as well.

PS3 exclusives look good for a PS3. I'd like to see uncharted series at 1080p 60fps with ultra textures, tessellation, and many of the other DX11 features.

People don't understand how PS3 produced great for IT'S capabilities, but were vastly overshadowed years ago by PC's. A PS3 was maxed out by 2007. The reason is, they never made every game 1080p. Only a few small resource light indie titles really.

Now that's not the same as maxing out internally what the system could do.

Because those are TWO different things.

The PS3 found ways to do more ways to paint something on a 10 inch canvas, but even early on the power was too limited to make a nice 18 inch masterpiece.

So what was capable of being displayed on the 10 inch was done better, but it's not the same.

Think of it like this way. It's like comparing two different car models. One faster than the other. So thus they can't compete with each other because the difference is too extreme.

But if you had two of the same cars, and modified one, you could get one to increase it's performance, but enough to change the overall dynamic of the system.

That's why the PS3 was BOTH maxed out in 2007 yet not fully utilized until recently. Both are true, because they mean two different things.

Oh and I game on all platforms. PS3/360/Wii U/PC and will be day one preorder of PS4 and 720.

aliengmr1760d ago

Windows Vista was a system hog, but a decent processor and enough ram and you could plow through it just fine. Win 7 and 8 (especially 8) on the other hand have no effect on games.

It all comes down to how you frame the argument. Console developers have been able to do a lot with less for years. So tailoring a game specifically for that system may produce higher quality for certain games.

However, if you are talking simply raw power, PC wins every time. There is no limit to what you can add to a PC. Even if you could make the argument that PS4 could dominate any PC GPU, the reality is, in a PC you can drop in another.

Now as far as how PC games are made. Yes they do aim for lower end PCs but they aren't designed for low end PCs. The goal is to make sure the visuals look good on a low end machine while making the options available for the high end machines.

In terms of optimization I really don't think its going to be as big an issue as it was this gen. Multi-plats have gotten much better over the years and with the PS4 being much more similar to a PC than the PS3, I don't see that being to big of an issue this time around.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1760d ago
OSIRUSSS1760d ago

PC has to deal with Windows the memory hog. The PS4 does not.

fr0sty1760d ago

There's more to it than just that. PS4 has other advantages as well.

ElementX1760d ago

Win 8 isn't much of a memory hog. Most PCs come with 8GB of RAM and gamers, who generally build their rigs, put in at least 8GB.

Ducky1760d ago (Edited 1760d ago )

I think with the social features the PS4 has, it's going to eat up a fair chunk of memory as well.

Besides, system ram isn't usually the bottleneck when it comes to performance of games on PC.

jmc88881760d ago

Really so the PS4 boots up games directly from a cartridge like a Sega Genesis?

Or does is have a massive overhead OS with always on features and constant streaming and downloading while you're not even aware of it, sending updates to worthless farcebook, with an overlay that allows you to surf the net while on and so forth.

No, that isn't going to be a memory hog, that's why they're going to set aside probably 2GB's just for a console OS.

aliengmr1760d ago (Edited 1760d ago )

1. Win 8

2. RAM is just silly cheap.

3. A 3yo could upgrade the RAM in a PC.

Seriously, RAM is not a great argument for the PS4. There are better ones.

superterabyte1760d ago

Yeah i'll upgrade to windows 8 when hell freezes over.

aliengmr1760d ago

I actually downgraded to 7 myself. Performance-wise Win 8 was great (aside from a couple issues) but its just plain ugly and really doesn't feel like a desktop OS.

a_squirrel1759d ago

There's other factors that people don't realize, like the latency of the kernel.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1759d ago
Megaton1760d ago

PC and PS4 will be the best combo for gamers, just like PC and PS3 was.

superterabyte1760d ago (Edited 1760d ago )

You're probably right. Because everyone has a computer. With a few upgrades you could have a decent 'rig'. Personally although i'm not a PC gamer games like (well only) Arma 3 and day z are games I wanna play plus having a good rig can be functional for other tasks besides gaming.

Plus PS4 just looks beastly.

The real issue after this console gen (PS4, Nextbox) and for PC gaming in about 6-10 years is that physicists have predicted the end to moore's law which IMO would leave the PC worse off than consoles but both would suffer. We need to think about a replacement in a post silicon era.

a_squirrel1759d ago

Actually... Steam Box should be able to satisfy the people who like to have the fastest stuff around.