Top
940°

Week In Tech: Hands On With Those New Games Consoles

It’s been a busy week in hardware and in my mortal hands I hold a laptop containing AMD’s Jaguar cores. The very same cores as found in the freshly minted games consoles from Microsoft and Sony. So what are they like and what does it mean for PC gaming?

Read Full Story >>
rockpapershotgun.com
The story is too old to be commented.
MonkeyNinja1134d ago (Edited 1134d ago )

What a bunch of bull.

“On the one hand, it does rather look like [PC gamers will] pretty much never have to upgrade your CPU to cope with the next decade of console ports. Almost any half decent CPU you currently have will be game enough.”

Is that why Planetside 2 looks like max PC settings on PS4?
http://n4g.com/news/1282953...

And as for physics, is that why Knack runs at 60fps with hundreds of blocks spinning around the character?
https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Then theirs this: (Dark Sorcerer Tech Demo - 12min)
https://www.youtube.com/wat...

According to the article, most PC gamers already have a PC capable of running games like this. Yeah. Okay.

Pandamobile1134d ago (Edited 1134d ago )

All that stuff is likely done on the GPU now.

You needed a hefty CPU for bad console ports from last gen like GTA IV because the last gen consoles had good CPUs, but crappy GPUs.

As the years went on, PC saw huge increases in computing power, but CPUs didn't increase in power at nearly the same rate. These days, it's best to offload as much stuff as possible to GPUs and leave the CPUs free to do what they do.

Now that we've finally got a new batch of consoles, they're more or less up to date with current GPU programming practices, so we will see a much larger emphasis on GPU computing on consoles now, where it used to be solely a job for PC GPUs.

There's nothing special about Knack's physics. Pretty much every PhysX enabled PC game of the last half decade supports thousands, if not millions of rigid bodies interacting at real-time frame rates.

There's also nothing really special about the Dark Sorcerer tech demo either. It's a tech demo for QD's facial animation system. There isn't anything complicated about how the animations are performed on the GPU side of things, it's all about their capturing methods.

"According to the article, most PC gamers already have a PC capable of running games like this. Yeah. Okay."

It's true. If you've built a decent rig in the last few years, you're pretty much all set to go. PC tech has been "next-gen" for years now. We've just been waiting for the games (and consoles) to catch up and actually utilize the amazing hardware Nvidia and AMD have made.

NameRemoved00171134d ago (Edited 1134d ago )

The days of crappy console ports is near its end, now that all 3 major platforms are the same architecture it would require a pretty crappy developer to pull that crap.

The consoles will probably have to pull some of the cpu power through Directcompute but that means less gpu power is available.

MonkeyNinja1134d ago

What PC specs would you need to run Planetside 2 @ 60fps 1080p? And how much would that cost?

It's very ignorant to compare a consoles specs directly to a PC's specs, which the author seems to do.

I guess he is right about most gamers having PCs that can run PS4 games though:
http://store.steampowered.c...

BTW, thank you for making a mature and detailed reply. I was expecting a PC elitist or troll to tear apart my comment.

NameRemoved00171134d ago (Edited 1134d ago )

@MonkeyBootey so if you use steam you automatically are a PC Gamer? No, most of those people with lower end pcs are there for older games or 2d games or they don't own any games at all and just have steam.

Planetside 2 was not running max on the PS4, where was the physx effects because I saw none of them because the PS4 is AMD not Nvidia. A lot of newer games have Physx which is a next generation particle effect pretty much but it will not be seen in any console games.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Pandamobile1134d ago

It probably costs around $800-1000 to get a PC to run Planetside 2 at 1080p60 on max settings. When the game first released, it was pretty unoptimized, but since then my framerate has doubled.

There's also been no confirmation on what resolution and framerate the PS4 version is targeting. 1080p60 might not be realistic for Planetside 2 on PS4.

NameRemoved00171134d ago (Edited 1134d ago )

@Pandamobile

The game is very CPU reliant (note this is old and the fps is a lot better than the beta):
http://i.imgur.com/5aJTp.pn...

This is one of those games that intel stomps amd by about 25-30fps with there i5s/i7s. With console optimization I think they could pull 60 as long as the gpu is good enough to push it at that res.

Pandamobile1134d ago

720p60 is one thing. 1080p60 is whole different game. We'll have to wait and see what the official word is, but my guess is that 1080p60 is a little optimistic, especially for a game that can potentially have 200+ people fighting in the same vicinity.

aquamala1134d ago

To answer the question of what pc would need to run planetside 2 at max settings, I think a 7950 is more than enough. So a $700-800 PC, and before you say a ps4 will be cheaper, add the $50 a year you need to play online.

And where in the game informer article say ps4 will run it a 60fps?

MusicComposer1134d ago

@aquamala Just to clarify, Sony stated that you do NOT need a PS Plus subscription to play Planetside 2 online on the PS4.

cee7731134d ago

@panda

You needed A beefy CPU for pc as well when gtaIV released I believe rockstar recommended A core 2 quad for gta.

decrypt1134d ago (Edited 1134d ago )

@musiccomposer

Yes you may not need PS+ to play planetside 2, however planetside 2 isnt the only game why you buy a PS4.

Pretty much any other online game will require PS+, hence PS+ should be counted into the price of a PS4 (reoccurring 50usd every year).

Not to mention every game bought on the PS4 will cost 10-20usd more than PC versions, PS4 wont be getting the sort of price cuts seen on Steam or greenman gaming either.

Lastly PS4 wont have any BC too, which means all your PS3 library goes to a waste should your PS3 go bad or u decide to sell it. Any PC gamer having a collection of games as of today wont be effected by any of the above.

I would think a good PC costing few hundred more than the PS4 and able to out perform it, while also has BC for older games is a bargain at this point. Since the loss of not being able to play your older games on the PS4 has to be worth thousands for most gamers.

talisker1134d ago (Edited 1134d ago )

@decrypt: You're picking your facts as they suit you. PS+ isn't only a multiplayer fee. It's also a great value of games that are coming with it, hundreds or even near a thousand-worth a year across three Sony platforms. If I'd count all PS+ games I got and tried to match it with 50 euros spent on Steam, there would be no comparison at all.

Also, why is everybody assuming PS3s will stop functioning the day PS4 comes out so "nobody can play their old games"?

decrypt1134d ago (Edited 1134d ago )

@taliskar

One big difference between games you get on PS+ and the games you get on Steam for discounts.

You dont need to constantly keep paying to maintain the games you have on Steam. With PS+ its as if they have you locked on to paying 50usd a year. Even if you dont like the most of they gave you access to (i wouldnt call them free since you dont own them, they disappear the day your PS+ ends).

"Also, why is everybody assuming PS3s will stop functioning the day PS4 comes out so "nobody can play their old games"?"

Well everything inevitably dies, current consoles are known to die in 3-4 years of time. So even if you have a PS3 that doesnt ensure long term replayability of your library on it. Unless you are willing to keep buying the PS3 again and again when ever it does die. Also Sony may as well end PS3 online services in a few years time in an effort to push people onto the next console. You never can tell about console gaming its just too controlled, too much power in the hands of the console maker.

Edit: its funny you seem to count the so called thousands of usd worth of games you got on PS+, but totally ignore the thousands of usd you paid for the PS3 games, which will no longer be playable once your PS3 dies, unless you choose to keep rebuying the PS3. Might as well add PS2 to that list too (oh wait its no longer under production).

ShinMaster1133d ago

PS4 ain't running Windows OS. Everything on it will be optimized beyond what's possible on PC. Less need to overcompensate as with PCs.

President1133d ago (Edited 1133d ago )

What are you talking about? According to Steam stats, less than 5 percent have a higher end gpu than whats in the PS4: http://store.steampowered.c...

So while you and your friends have a GTX680, you're not represenative for the pc gaming community at all.

The Dark Sorcerer demo was not about facial animations, the whole scene was real time, and these graphics are what you can expect from PS4. Remember The Casting demo on PS3 back in 2006 by Quantic Dream? Heavy Rain and Beyond surpassed those graphics.

More proof we will see similar graphics? The Order 1886 was rendered in real time in-game

You will not be able to get these experiences on PC.

reynod1133d ago

@president

PS4 isnt out yet, its still got 5 months before release. PC tech constantly evolves.

Everyone knows the CPU in the PS4 and Xbox one are weak. So its just the GPU side. You can pretty much bet any 250usd GPU will be outperforming the PS4 at launch. few months further down the line it just wont be a contest any more as better PC tech roles out.

President1133d ago

No one is contest that. But saying your gpu was able to do what PS4 could do for the last 5 years is just a lie. Why should the PS4 which aims to sell 10s of millions compete with a niche market of high end gpu enthusiasts? Only 5pct of Steam users have a high end gpu card. Sony could put a GTX780 in the PS4, it wouldn't sell much. The Cell cpu was ahead of its time, it wasn't very profitable was it.

sourav931133d ago

@Panda I still think PhysX is overrated. As a PC/console gamer, I prefer Havok; Much more realistic physics, and it isn't a resource hog like PhysX. A lot of PC gamers agree to this fact. But there are some who just prefer the unrealistic and OTT look and feel of PhysX, even though it might tear their system apart. When you have to have a dedicated card just to run the physics engine for a game, you know something's not right.

Angeljuice1133d ago

PhysX has already been licenced for PS4, Nvidia and Sony have signed the papers.

GuyThatMakesSense1133d ago (Edited 1133d ago )

@hdshatter

"Planetside 2 was not running max on the PS4, where was the physx effects because I saw none of them because the PS4 is AMD not Nvidia. A lot of newer games have Physx which is a next generation particle effect pretty much but it will not be seen in any console games."

It may not have PhysX, but it does have particles comparable. See the PS4 trailer: https://www.youtube.com/wat...

AndrewLB1133d ago

@monkeybooty

you'll need about $500 if you get good deals. http://www.rockpapershotgun...

Kleptic1133d ago

Most of you guys touched on it very well...Nothing has changed, industry wise, to make this next console generation any different than how it always goes down...

The simple truth is...consoles are were the money is...period...it wasn't always that way, especially when consoles were offline (but they still made most of the publisher profit)...

what this creates is a rift in game development, even on the technology side...PCs have been capable of 'more' for years, but developers and publishers do not take the risk to put the millions of dollars in development for a moving target...its easy for PC guys to say how much better PC gaming is, and most of them put their laundry list up (not the case in this discussion, which is a great change) of their spec'd out rigs...but no matter how you slice it, those high end PC users make up such a small end of the market...no one is making games to fully take advantage of it...

but on the other hand, when a reletively weak console shows up...that hardware gets put through the industry, and becomes the standard...coding tech, middle ware, development tools, etc. all become more standard, easier to use, and less expensive...and this turns around and filters back to PC's, where the tech is utilized even more...

there is also the inevitable apples to oranges issue...PC hardware isn't running a PS4's, for example, OS...its running windows...an OS that is FAR from optimized for gaming...While a PS4/Xbox One may have an OS footprint ranging around 1GB during gaming (probably far less, but we'll see)...the average windows PC will have way more than that, and even worse, poor resource allocation that the end user has very little control over...other than simply uninstalling nearly every peice of software you generally run...Have you ever seen the complaints from PC users on what Chrome or Internet Explorer are doing in the background while you're trying to play BF3? its not pretty...

Thats why a PC with 16GB of Ram is becoming the standard fair, laptops with 8GB are almost never considering a 'gaming platform'...does it need 16gb to play a modern game? absolutely not...it only needs it because MS has never catered to the gaming crowd on how to turn off redundant processes when you actually need to really ring out the hardware...a problem consoles have never, and will never, have...

Pandamobile1133d ago

@GuyThatMakesSense

The Planetside 2 PS4 trailer was most likely captured from PC gameplay. While Nvidia is bringing PhysX to next gen consoles (just as they did with last gen hardware), they've not yet (or have no plans to) brought their GPU accelerated physics effects like particles, rigid body dynamics and vector fields.

Nvidia uses PhysX as a marketing tool for their GPUs. I don't think they're going to want to lose that sort of exclusivity by bringing one of flagship technologies to consoles.

tyeshadillon61133d ago SpamShow
Ju1133d ago

Funny discussion. Gameplay aside. Am I the only one thinking this game looks just awful? Can't even blame the developers. It's made by Sony (SOE). It's a massive online game and plays in enormous world, that's probably why the rest took a hit. But I don't quite get it what's so exciting about it - but then, I am probably too late, my beta is quite empty. It has vast empty worlds. I like to be on foot, vehicular combat is not mine, and this is quite boring in that play field.

Speaking of, my guess is, Sony probably has HW accelerated PhysiX for the PS4 - we know Sony signed a deal with NVidia. And I'd think it's probably compute accelerated (but sure not Cuda on an AMD chip) everything else would be pointless.

Anyway, compare this with Destiny and I know where I will be heading...

+ Show (22) more repliesLast reply 1133d ago
Pope_Kaz_Hirai_II1134d ago (Edited 1134d ago )

I can tell you any of the the things 360 had over ps3 are gone next gen
Ps4 will have: party chat
Custom soundtracks
No ram issues
Far more robust psn
360 was always cheaper.. now ps4 is cheaper
So is there any reason to game on live over psn now? I would love to hear them.

@panda .. as a fellow pc gamer we know that even a 300 $ pc today could do 1080p and 60fps in a lot of games so theconsoles would have to be very underpowered to not be capable of that.

Foxgod1133d ago

Great, now the Xb1 doesnt have Ram issues either, because like my pc (I7), it uses DDR3.
Would be strange if you claim my PC has RAM issue's considering its stronger then the XB1 and the PS4.

HenryFord1133d ago

You're surely right that the PS4 will feature a far more robust PSN. Considering that Xbox probably won't see a PSN any time soon.

kingPoS1134d ago

It's only natural that one would defend they're turf when under attack. Is there any other explanation?

doublebear1134d ago

Keeping their audience well informed? This is the PC gaming master race, they sit on the iron throne, you know that.

I think their assumption on the amount of cores available is wrong, but not on the individual performance. And I think you'll see some GPGPU improvements on the console side.

But with the PS3, Sony claimed to have a supercomputer on a chip, and certain fanboys believed them. Now Sony are claiming to have supercharged laptop chips, which is more reasonable.

Gamer19821133d ago

These article writers never take a lot of things into account like games for consoles utilizing the consoles exact hardware and PC fragmentation. PC is amazing I stopped using my PS3 and only use for the odd exclusive now and then and went PC a long time ago for top quality games but fragmentation means when making a PC game you cannot make it look better than say a PS3 for double the power of a specced PS3. Try it! Try play Crysis 3 at a stable 30FPS on a PC with 512mb RAM or even 1GB which is double and a single core 3.2GHZ cpu with a GeForce 7800 GT (which uses same core but is actually more than twice as powerful). Crysis 3 will be unplayable.

awi59511133d ago

Yeah i have a pc that can run all those games whats your point my crossfire build can beat PS4 and xbox now. ANd when i upgrade for BF4 PC no chance.

Krosis1133d ago

@MonkeyBootey

What really is the issue is consoles are not upgradable. Because consoles are the lead platform in the gaming industry they subsequently dictate the graphical bar in games as game developers have to make their games run smoothly on said lead platform.

For example, Crysis 1 was a PC-exclusive and designed as such--to use the very best hardware PC had to offer. That game would never run on consoles when it came out as it would have to be severely nurfed (was a poorly optimized game to begin with).

Consoles are impressive tech as they are built to run games over a 10 year period. However, the reality is computer hardware evolves and improves with every passing day. Because PCs are upgradable and can access the very best components as long as the customer has the cash, power is never an issue on PC as the games that are multiplatform generally offer little challenge to mid-to high end gaming rigs. To give the PC a workout they offer graphics settings that the user can up:tessellation, SSAO, AA etc..settings that would literally destroy the PS3 and Xbox 360 as the specs they have are outdated so quickly.

This generation, like everyone of them before it, the PS4 and Xbox One have specs that are more comparable with today's mid-end PCs. While the fanboys will disagree, new consoles regardless of the generation launch with Specs that are simply not as good as top-end PCs of 2-3 years ago. That's what >$2000K buys a PC enthusiast.

You have to be careful what you say. A multiplatform game, as long as the devs provide the graphics settings (they always do), will ALWAYS look better and best on a PC. This will never change as long as consoles have a price cap to stay under and are not upgradable. A lot of the graphical demos shown for Xbox and PS4 are impressive to console users as they are unfamiliar with computer hardware (they only see what the last console brought them. While Knack with his hundreds of blocks spinning around at 60fps is encouraging and impressive to a console user, these types of physics have been seen already and were possible on PC long before the announcement of PS4/Xbox One.

If PC was the lead platform and consoles were of no concern to developers, the graphics shown at E3 would not be overly impressive as PCs are capable of a lot more. But consoles ARE the lead platform and the easiest way to enjoy video games--thus graphics will always be destined to pertain to console ability and not the more fluid and powerful PC (unfortunately for graphic enthusiasts).

New consoles are always an awesome time for gamers. For PC because graphics can finally move forward (held back by years because of the last gen of consoles) and for console users because they can finally have their "next gen"--a concept that really only applies to finite hardware. PC evolves fluidly by the week and as fast as hardware is released-- there really isn't a "next gen".

Ultimately,no the processors of the new consoles are not that impressive in the PC world as PCs that are a few years old even have far better. You will see, as it is every generation of consoles, that shortly into a consoles life they become completely outdated hardware-wise when compared to what is available. It is VERY much like the cellphone market. It's like choosing a decent smartphone and sticking with it for the next 10 years. Thankfully for console users, and to the dismay of the PC crowd, consoles are (likely always)the lead platform and graphics will never be designed to exceed their ability.

Death1133d ago

Most PC gamers is kind of vague. Many PC gamers is probably close though. Good PC GPU's cost about the same as the next gen consoles. PC architecture is typically more advanced too. Console gamers are at war over GDDR5 being better than DDR3 when in reality PC's use DDR3 on the CPU side and GDDR5 on the GPU side. This is the best use of each type of ram since each has it's strong and weak points. Consoles can't do this due to space and cost.

My gaming PC is "better" than the consoles on the horizon, but I also paid about 10x as much. You can get similar or even better performance today for alot less though.

awi59511133d ago

They do not cost as much as console every gen we hear this crap. AT launch any mid range cheap butt pc card at 130 thats gone on sale will make console look like crap. It was the same with ps3 and xbox last gen and every gen before that. Consoles are limited thats just a fact even if you stress your GPu on Pc you can bring frame rates up to 30 fps and will look far better than console. I game at 60 fps on pc but 30 is very smooth and playable i just dont want that fps for multiplayer. But i have 2 powerful cards in my pc that i didnt break the bank for and with 4gigs total graphics memory games just run and look better on PC.

Also with those weak crappy cpus that are in consoles PC has nothing to worry about. Because we all know when the lighting and physics hit these consoles the will blow up from the stress. And since these are ATI cards they dont have physx so the GPU cant make up for the weak cpu for Ai, and physics so games will still look and play way better on PC and have more detail and more characters on screen.

Death1133d ago

PC's are much more powerful, but console specs don't change which makes efficiency and optimization much better. PC's are hands down more powerful, but you get what you pay for. My dual core Area51 m17x struggles compared to the current crop of consoles which were released a couple years before. Granted that's a laptop, but it was originally an $8000 laptop. My 2 gig overclocked 6950 on my AuroraAlx running all 4 liquid cooled cores at 4ghz and having 16gigs of DDR3 Vengence does a nice job, but I still can't max out all games. That's a hefty investment to not be "top of the line".

Anon19741133d ago

So, the original title of the article is "Hands On With Those New Games Consoles" and then the article leads with...

"Ha, sorry. Not really."

Who approves this?

TheKayle11133d ago

clearly monkeybootey u dont have any idea of what hardware run on pc nowdays...

my dual gpu setup (2 evga 660 ti) can perform 5.2tf (2.6 tf each one)

a ps4 can perform at 100% 1.8tf

MonkeyNinja1133d ago

I'm not, nor did I ever question a PCs ability to run a PS4-quality game. I said MOST PC gamers don't have a PC capable of running PS4-quality games.

TheKayle11133d ago (Edited 1133d ago )

again...MOST of pc r more powerful than a ps4 and a xbox one taped together..nowdays...

every i7 is 3 or 4 times (or more) powerfull than the dat 8 jaguar cores..

and is better we dont take in consideradions the gpus...

the only good thing about the ps4 is the unified ram pool...but it dont push performance is jsut bandwith..

TheKayle11133d ago

and xbox is far less performant than the ps4 so is better we dont talk about xbox too

Muffins12231133d ago

My pc could run this even without it being optimized for my gpu

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1133d ago
wishingW3L1134d ago (Edited 1134d ago )

the CPUs on the XB1 and PS4 are even weaker than the Cell and Xenon but with GPGPU computing everything will be fine.

edit: I'm not even talking about clock-speeds, they are just weaker. Period. APU's CPUs are the worst CPUs you'll find in the market right but they come with integrated cards that are much more powerful than Intel's HDs and because they come in the same die then APU are way cheaper and economic and that'all its advantage.

For PS4 and XB1 what they did was pair them with some decent medium-end discrete cards. That way they can do very advanced GPGPU computing because the CPU and GPU are on the same die, so there will be fast access and a huge unified memory pool to take advantage of.

Cell: 240 Gflops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

APU CPU: 52 Gflops
http://electronicdesign.com...

As you can see the APU is way weaker than the Cell. ;)

Destrania1134d ago

Technically the CPU is not weaker. Clock speeds don't mean everything.

Kenshin_BATT0USAI1134d ago

...Clock speeds are absurdly important. You can have 20 cores if you want, but if they function at 1Ghz, it'll be kinda pointless.

duplissi1134d ago

yes and no, it all depends on how many calculations the cpu can perform in one cycle.

I would imagine that the cpu that the xb one and ps4 have can execute more tasks per cycle than the cpus from the ps3 and x360 so the fact that it runs at a lower speed may be irrelevant.

papashango1133d ago (Edited 1133d ago )

Calculations is not even the correct way to go about it. super pi is a benchmark built around calculations and while Intel would repeatedly destroy Amd CPUs here. Results in actual game benchmarks did not reflect this. Well. Not until sandy bridge came out

awi59511133d ago

Yeah tell that to anyone that bought the crappy amd FX series have slow speeds on alot of cores sucks for games. They jerk and dont run smooth at all.

duplissi1130d ago

@awi5951

dunno what you are talking about, but my 8350 handles games with aplomb, sure there are some games that having a good single thread capable cpu would give me better fps. skyrim is one game, but when i still get over 60 fps (minimum fps not average or max) with the game MAXED out does it really matter?

games are only going to be more multi core aware as we move forward so it is a moot point for gaming now. for other things maybe it is still an issue.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1130d ago
d3nworth11134d ago

No they're not. Its the number of cores that matter not the clock speed.

Kenshin_BATT0USAI1134d ago

It's a mixture of both actually. Ideally, you'd want something above 2.5-3Ghz and Quad-core these days, if you're a PC enthusiast.

Overall, but like I said because you can have as many cores as you want. But if they don't have a good clock speed, it's kinda pointless.

Kinda like having a broken microwave. Sure you got one, but it doesn't mean it'll heat up anything.

aquamala1134d ago

Cell's 240 Gflops number is using single precision floating point,

With double precision point (which is how everyone else measure gflops) it's only 21

I can't believe someone's still repeating that 240 number, it's only been debated for 7 years

OpenGL1133d ago

Double precision / FP64 is meaningless for games though.

wishingW3L1134d ago

but APUs are designed that way because like I said, the important part here it's the GPU. These days CPUs are becoming more and more irrelevant, and even more when it comes to gaming. So on the PS4 instead of having 2 pieces creating insane heat then now we only have 1, so it's easier to cool down and consoles will last longer.

Metfanant1134d ago (Edited 1134d ago )

oh lets see your actual "proof" of the CPU's being weaker please...oh right, it doesn't exist lol

the link you provided for the APU specs is comical...

1. its a Bobcat...PS4 is Jaguar...
2. its a 2 core....PS4 is 8...
3. the article is measuring performance of the whole APU at 52Gflops!
4. did you actual read the article? check out the video at the end. APU that the article tests is designed to power "digital signage" like touch screen kiosks!

my lord!

Gasian1134d ago (Edited 1134d ago )

I would say games are more GPU intensive and the matter of having a high-end CPU to run it is not as important. But Having a Good and well functioning CPU does a lot for the amount of tasks that are offloaded to enable GPU's for extra performance on the gaming side. They are both equally important when building a gaming device.

awi59511133d ago

APu's suck they should only be for Laptops and they suck there too.

Metfanant1133d ago

@Awi5951 i guess youre smarter than all the hardware techs at Sony and MS then...why don't you have a job doing this stuff???...oh wait...

how did i get any disagrees on my above post?....what did i say that was not completely factual?

awi59511133d ago (Edited 1133d ago )

Hey Metfanant

Both companies would have been better off if they took their current cpus that cost nothing now because they are old and made copies that had twice the cores at the same clock speed. And they would be far superior than these laptop cpus they have now. And we would see games never before seen on consoles developers could use all those cores at proper speeds for amazing AI,physics, and particle effects. With these crap cpus games will still struggle and be held back because of it. Hell microsoft would have been better off to pull a xbox original and pull a cpu off the shelf for the box and be in a way better position.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1133d ago
Muffins12231133d ago

Tobad no developer even optimized that crap

thebigman1133d ago

"While the CPU is powerful, the GPU is where the system gets its 52 GFLOP rating." Right from the article itself, and that's not even considering that Bobcat APU's were only 2 cores. Jaguar is 4 core, considerably more powerful, and the PS4 essentially has two of them in their APU.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1130d ago
AngelicIceDiamond1134d ago

Well if you look at Ryse, I'd beg to differ.

MysticStrummer1134d ago (Edited 1134d ago )

You're saying that's the best thing you saw at E3?

Visually I mean.

EDIT - Maybe a better question would be, are you saying that's the best thing you saw visually between PS4 and One at E3? Ryse looked cool to me, I just ask because I haven't seen anyone say it was the best looking of what was shown.

AngelicIceDiamond1134d ago (Edited 1134d ago )

It was one of the better looking games visually at E3 yes.

@Wish3l

right, ok...

wishingW3L1134d ago

Ryse was running on a PC with Windows 7 and a Nvidia GTX, so prepare to be disappointed when you play the actual game on XB1.