In reality games multi-core very poorly still and a faster core will almost always be far better than more cores.
Maybe consoles didn't suffer from this when they were using specialised operating systems but now they are all switching to x86 OS?
Just Cause dev claims “PS4 will out-power most PCs for years
- Thread starter OLDPHART
- Start date
Maybe consoles didn't suffer from this when they were using specialised operating systems but now they are all switching to x86 OS?
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
That's because they could get away with it. Not any more. They'll have to develop good multi-threaded software to even meet the manufacturer requirements.
It's a bit of a disingenuous statement from a studio head at a console launch, and being lapped up by the media. What's new in the world.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,383
All the new games need at least quad core in order to properly run them, some may need more if you throw a lot of GPU towards the visual side. The future is multicore, it always was.
Yeah, we (I say 'we', I've only just got a GTX580) are in the minority of gamers. Most people have average cards. The sale of top end cards like 7870s and GTX680s account for a small percentage of graphics card sales.
And the kind of people playing on average or old cards are the prime market for PS4s too. They will buy a PS4 and be blown away by the jump in graphics from their PCs.
yea and try running task manager and monitoring the core usage.
Usually one is maxed out and the rest are fairly low usage
Christ you couldn't be more wrong on every point.
Microsoft really do need to compete on specs, prices will be similar. Sony arguably have the better exclusives, but that's down to personal opinion. Microsoft don't have the games behind them more at all though. Price hasn't been announced for crying out loud, We don't even know what the thing looks like yet!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,594
- Location
- Surrey
Dg is quite amazingly wrong on a very consistent basis.
Isn't that steam survey fairly ambigious in this context though?
It says that 8gb is the most popular single configuration with 22% however it's not at least 8gb it's simply just 8gb, it could be that another 21% could be made up of pc's with 16 gb ram, and another 21% could be pc's with 32 gb RAM, it's highly unlikley but the steam survey just says that 8gb is the most popular single config, not that only 22% of people have at least 8gb RAM.
Pc's for gaming purposes are now highly likely to have 8gb RAM, even a crappy Dell gaming pc, lowest spec Pc designed for games has 8gb Ram, and 16gb is getting more common now as RAM is quite cheap at the moment, for gaming rigs, but you simply have no need for anything above 4 unless you are strating to throw games at a pc.
The PS4 will be more powerful than even a lot of gaming pc's at launch, but by the time games actually get anything like the amount out of the hardware that will see them use enough of the power to actually make them pratically more powerful than a decent gaming pc at launch, the Pc will be back in front again.
The power of the PS4 and new X-box is completely meaningless until near the end of their life cycle anyway, it takes devs that long to get anything like the performance that is theoretically possible aout of a console, the games that have come out in the last year or so look one hell of a lot better than the stuff that came out at launch. And i'd hazard it's not going to get any better as the prominence of crap re-hashes of the big fanchises will continue to be no more than a big patch rather than a new game, as mainstream developers are so god damn lazy these days, a couple of smaller developers will probably do a great job of optimizing games for the new systems but the games wont sell as they aren't COD or one of the other big franchises, then EA will buy the small dev and ruin everything that was good about the game anyway
The thing that has turned me off console gaming and is unlikely to see me return in the forseeable future is the multiplayer, until they sort that out i can't be arsed, Dice tried it with the dedicated servers in BF 3 yet with 16 odd people on a dedicated server i'm still gettting more lag than i do in Dayz or the arma 3 alpha with over 3x as many people on there, i don't want to be relying on bobs connection while playing some COD and getting lag on a 12 player server
jesus you get god awful lag with 2 people on bloody fifa As an aside does anyone care about netcodes anymore? I used to be able to play quake 2 on 56k with a ping of 100 and almost no lag, but since then it seems netcodes have just become crap
and even with 100mb broadband i get lag on mostly console or console ports You can click on the items on the Steam survey and see the detail. They are absolute values up to 11GBs, and then the final one is 12GBs and over.
8GBs is the most common with 22%, closely followed by 4GBs with 21%, 3GBs with 19% and 2GBs with 11%. Only 9% have 12GBs or over.
8GBs is the most common with 22%, closely followed by 4GBs with 21%, 3GBs with 19% and 2GBs with 11%. Only 9% have 12GBs or over.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,383
Ah i see, didn't realise i could do that
Good god, that means that some part of 20% are rocking out with 1gb or less of ram
Yep. When you look through all the results it brings to light just how much of a minority the enthusiast gamer is in.
The RAM seems to be the exception, unless all the Purple Shirt Store PCs now come with that much? The Intel Graphics, single 1080p monitor and dual core ~2.5Ghz PC are all pretty standard for off the shelf consumer PCs.
The RAM seems to be the exception, unless all the Purple Shirt Store PCs now come with that much? The Intel Graphics, single 1080p monitor and dual core ~2.5Ghz PC are all pretty standard for off the shelf consumer PCs.
It will be £400, they've seen the amount of preorders and have seen people are happy to pay £400 so they will be charging £400.
I rebuild every 2-3 years anyway so I've only got 8 months to 18 months until I rebuild everything so I'll be ok
I rebuild every 2-3 years anyway so I've only got 8 months to 18 months until I rebuild everything so I'll be ok
Last edited:
I think the problem with this thread and the devs original point is that as a statement it means nothing to anyone about anything.
It is irrelevant whether it is better than most pcs or your current rig, the point is that when you buy a pc you can make it whatever spec you would like. The people who's computers are less powerful choose for it to be that way and knew what they were getting.
It is irrelevant whether it is better than most pcs or your current rig, the point is that when you buy a pc you can make it whatever spec you would like. The people who's computers are less powerful choose for it to be that way and knew what they were getting.
I doubt this. I expect a lot of them walk into a PC shop and ask the nice saleman for "A PC I can play games on". I doubt most PC gamers would know the first thing about how to choose the specific components within a PC, let alone actually spec and build one themselves.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Whilst I agree with your point there are more 7950's and 670's out there than 680's and 7970's which offer largely similar performance, given they are the same generation of hardware. The takeup of the top end halo models will always be small in comparison.