Just Cause dev claims “PS4 will out-power most PCs for years

i used to sell consoles and console games for a living this involved importing ;)

the price is 400.

as for people still arguing about the power lok at the steam survey i put up yesterday nearly 40 percent i think it was game on low speed dualcores ffs

so a 8 core cpu and two to three times faster gpu is a massive step up to the " majority " of pc gamers. we are the minority and to many with highend pcs its not much but for 400 quid a 8 core cpu and 7870 in performance is a lot of gaming power. anyone denying this is quite frankly daft.
 
It's a low clocked low power 8 core, CPU performance probably won't be much faster, if at all than the majority of PC's.
GPU wise, I can agree with.
 
[TW]Fox;23929282 said:
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.

True, but even including the '2nd tier' cards like the 7950 and 670 doesn't make a massive improvement on the %'s.
 
Put the money towards building new PC or buy PS4... I can't decide. What I have now still plays the current games nicely at my 1080 res.
 
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.

The PS4 will be more powerful than most gaming pc's sold, but PC's will be in front in general straight away in terms of straight hardware. The "average" PC won't be infront for 3-4 years at least though. On launch a quad Haswell or octo AMD anything will have more processing power, and a 7950 will have more GPU power(let alone sli/xfire configs, higher single cards, or any new ones launched by then). The PS4 will likely be as fast as a gaming "pc" needs to be for the time though, more CPU power doesn't do an awful lot for gaming and the sheer efficiency of a console vs gaming "through" a nasty intrusive inefficient OS will mean the PS4 will utilise its available power far far more efficiently than a top end PC can.

For instance having just looked on Dell, under their "best selling deals" they have a bunch of computers with Intel IGPU's, and two computers they state have superior graphics, with 7570's in....., their special edition media centres are $1400 with a 7770 in, their alienware graphics computers are surprisingly good gaming alternatives Their aimed at gaming Alienwares, lol, $700 gets youa 640gt, upgrading to $1100 nets you a 660gtx, $1800 gets you 7850 xfire and $400 more gets you 7950xfire....

640gt is where gaming is "at" for your average gamer buying from Dell and spending up to $1000. Most people don't have a freaking clue what they are buying, getting, or missing out on. In 4 years the average card will be two real generations on, but still low end, and still WAY below a 7850 in performance, let alone a low level access console 7850 which will gain hugely in efficiency. Windows KILLS performance badly and is crazy inefficient, but the average gamer doesn't have even "midrange" current gen cards.

As for the power being irrelevant, absolutely 100% incorrect. Its as simple as this, games on the xbox 360 8 years ago didn't use 25% of the gpu power and use 100% today, they used 100% both times, just efficiency of coding, leveraging the power and using the power changes. This changes over time with much better hardware each couple of years anyway. People get better at designing, get better tools, can design more things more quickly and spend more time on particular parts to make them look better.

If the Xbox 360 had less power on launch, the games would have looked significantly worse. There are two huge and VERY separate parts to gaming design, things that require performance and improve with more performance available and design, which is purely down to the people, time and quality of people doing it, and none of that has anything to do with performance. If we stopped getting more power in gpu's today, graphics quality would increase for decades more with the same level of power. The only exception to that is games designed for previous consoles but released on the new ones, there are a few games that get caught out, especially games in design for a few years that get delayed until after the PS4 release, most guys starting a new game from within the past 2 years should be designing for the new consoles though.

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.

As above, most people absolutely do not know what they are getting, and when they bought dell's with 6300gt's in SLI, thought they were getting gaming beasts.

Dell sell Intel HD as standard and talk up 640gt/7570's as "gaming" gpu's for anything less than $1000 pc's. Most people don't choose what is in their PC, they have £600 for a PC and buy whats £600, and when Dell or a guy in purple shirt tell them that absolutely low end GPU is great for gaming, they assume its true.
 
Last edited:
it comes down to what games you play basically

fps will be locked as usual but if you play puzzles games or racing games all time or adventure wont really matter

fps games then build a pc
 
The biggest 'issue' with comparing spec is that PC specifications evolve constantly whereas console specifications are 'frozen in time' given the spec of the console does not change after initial release.

Yes, PC's are generally more powerful and better but we often have to pay more for a single GPU than an ENTIRE games console costs...
 
[TW]Fox;23929436 said:
The biggest 'issue' with comparing spec is that PC specifications evolve constantly whereas console specifications are 'frozen in time' given the spec of the console does not change after initial release.

Yes, PC's are generally more powerful and better but we often have to pay more for a single GPU than an ENTIRE games console costs...

Still not a valid comparison. Didn't MS originally sell the Xbox at a loss just to get sales of it which they could make back by ripping peo... charging people for xbox live and for the privilege of creating/patching games on the system? The companies who sell the PC components don't do any such thing, nor do companies who re-sell them such as OcUK or any other company. The only difference is the initial cost which soon takes over through the cost of games/services.
 
[TW]Fox;23929436 said:
The biggest 'issue' with comparing spec is that PC specifications evolve constantly whereas console specifications are 'frozen in time' given the spec of the console does not change after initial release.

Yep.

Average gaming PC specs go up in a line, while console specs go up in big steps, jumping ahead and then staying level and falling behind before jumping ahead again.
 
Still not a valid comparison. Didn't MS originally sell the Xbox at a loss just to get sales of it which they could make back by ripping peo... charging people for xbox live and for the privilege of creating/patching games on the system? The companies who sell the PC components don't do any such thing, nor do companies who re-sell them such as OcUK or any other company. The only difference is the initial cost which soon takes over through the cost of games/services.

All consoles are sold at a loss.

The money in consoles is in the games.
 
correct skeeter

the originally xbox 360 i think was losing microsoft 125 dollars loss per console . same with playstations. they lose on the consoles but make profits on games. also sony was clever with blu ray
 
Yep.

Average gaming PC specs go up in a line, while console specs go up in big steps, jumping ahead and then staying level and falling behind before jumping ahead again.

How can console tech jump ahead when they are based on current pc tech and not even the top end components.

Oh wait you said average sorry. my bad :|
 
Well yes, I expect so. I imagine the current slim PS3 isn't a loss maker.

But initially, and for quite a while after launch, the console hardware will be sold at a loss. The money is then made back through the licensing of the games. The situation isn't the same for PC hardware as the hardware manufacturers have no way to make money back from PC games.
 
not for many many years .



components and such will fall in pricing and fabrication will become cheaper but the period during the biggest influx of sales will be when the consoles are new.

xbox 360 = - $4 billion lol so slightly wrong :p

doesnt matter what it costs them as long as it is in profit for the whole which is made by the games.

xbox 360 with hard drive cost $470 just for components. thats with hd. i think its 50 dollars less for none hd
 
Last edited:
All consoles are sold at a loss.

The money in consoles is in the games.

Yes, which makes the point that 'the PC components costs more' kinda moot. It costs more because it is being resold at a loss. The company needs to take that hit in an effort to get more boxes sold to make it back in the long run. Over time it'll cost you more. A major selling point for some products is that even though it has a high initial cost, you get that back by lower running costs, yet the console market is completely the opposite.
 
What he means by the statement is this:

The PS4 hardware and capability will out-power the majority of 'gamers' computers, not that the PS4 will be more powerful than the top end computer components.
 
yes this is why consoles need to be pretty fast on release because they need to last the periods to get the money back and profit. which means minimum 5 yr +

this is why i laughed for last two years at peoples lower spec list that they thought the new next gen consoles would run.

once you understand how it works you can see what will happen .
 
What he means by the statement is this:

The PS4 hardware and capability will out-power the majority of 'gamers' computers, not that the PS4 will be more powerful than the top end computer components.

the avg gamer not the minority which pc " enthusiasts " are.

as said previously look on steam at avg gamer look at those specs that player base is what he refers to.

hoping linus does reply. he was out of the office yesterday :(
 
Yes, which makes the point that 'the PC components costs more' kinda moot. It costs more because it is being resold at a loss. The company needs to take that hit in an effort to get more boxes sold to make it back in the long run. Over time it'll cost you more. A major selling point for some products is that even though it has a high initial cost, you get that back by lower running costs, yet the console market is completely the opposite.

This is why I'm not convinced by the Steambox idea. If Valve make a console by bundling together a bunch of top level components of the moment, they don't have the sealed architecture of a console like Sony or Microsoft, meaning they wont be able to make their money back on licensing the software.

The end result means they will have to sell the boxes at the total cost of the internal components, which will make them extortionately expensive when compared to 'proper' consoles, and the same price as building a PC to that spec.
 
Back
Top Bottom