Playstation 4 being announced February 20th?

Saints Row is 'much more fun' if you like over the top, loud, bright and stupid. If you like that, you won't like GTA.

GTA IV was a master piece.

I've just remembered who you are Sonny, meh, explains a lot.

I really want E3 to hurry up so I can see more of both consoles!
 
OMG PROTECT THA PIMP, THAT HILARIOUSLY FUN BRILLIANT GAME MODE /sarcasm.

Yes, it bored me, like the rest of Saints Row. Saints Row took what GTA does and just made it brighter and stupider, oh and uses worse humour.
 
I take it you preferred having to go on virtual dates and all that internet cafe crap that was in GTA 4. I think that is what most put me off about the game all the tedious stuff that was in there which appealed to overweight/ugly gamers with no social lives.
 
The internet cafe was pretty funny, certainly some of the web pages were. I obviously understand that you didn't notice this because you were out having a social life and being super fit and attractive.

What an utterly hilariously childish response, trying to make it personal, but it was only a matter of time eh Sonny.
 
GTA IV was good, but it had nothing close to the longevity of SA, single player wise anyways, the MP was decent, although SA MP on PC was much better.

I hope they can bring back some of the fun to GTA V and hopefully the cars don't handle like they are on stilts again.
 
TheVoice said:
Sure it did, it has PlayTV; granted it's not built-in but the functionality was available if you wanted it. That's the way it should stay too, it doesn't need a Freeview tuner built-in. The obvious trend with the games consoles is towards internet-based services anyway, a Freeview tuner makes no sense.
Click to expand...

playtv wasnt a recorder as such - its still only a player of catchup tv no?

Im not disagreeing with you, I dont believe a pvr is necessary - but my original point stands, very little hardware required (and what is would be dirt cheap) , the software itself is probably the most expensive part and that doesnt have to be standard (d/l content at a later date)
 
Psycho Sonny said:
RAM is dirt cheap and has been for several years now, I think I got 8GB (4x2GB) for £40 and that was a couple of years back and it was really good ram too OCZ Special Ops

Before that I paid £400 for 4GB (4x1GB) but that would be going back a to a long time ago when RAM was expensive.

Anyone building a half decent PC these days imo should be looking at 8GB minimum just to future proof themselves, in fact I seen talk of people buying 16GB just because it was so cheap and they didn't think it was possible it could go any cheaper. Looking at prices now DDR3 @ decent speeds is £40 for 8GB and £70 for 16GB.

Not making any comparisons to the PS4 just saying that any custom made pc from now on is most likely going to have 8GB of RAM in it minimum, just because it is so cheap.
Click to expand...

Thing is, this is GDDR5 we're talking about here, which in terms of bandwidth I believe beats the pants off of the DDR3 memory that most people will be buying for new builds. Afaik GDDR5 memory can only be found on mid to high end graphics cards and the most powerful ones out there only have 6gb GDDR5 of memory (and cost over £800).

So the issue you have is that, even if you buy a £800 graphics card and 16gb of DDR3 memory, you'll be 2gb short of fast ram and still have system overheads to deal with. I get the feeling the next gen will encourage some very cool leaps in the PC market in terms of hardware.
 
FrankJH said:
playtv wasnt a recorder as such - its still only a player of catchup tv no?

Im not disagreeing with you, I dont believe a pvr is necessary - but my original point stands, very little hardware required (and what is would be dirt cheap) , the software itself is probably the most expensive part and that doesnt have to be standard (d/l content at a later date)
Click to expand...
Its a dual Freeview PVR

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Streeteh said:
Thing is, this is GDDR5 we're talking about here, which in terms of bandwidth I believe beats the pants off of the DDR3 memory that most people will be buying for new builds. Afaik GDDR5 memory can only be found on mid to high end graphics cards and the most powerful ones out there only have 6gb GDDR5 of memory (and cost over £800).

So the issue you have is that, even if you buy a £800 graphics card and 16gb of DDR3 memory, you'll be 2gb short of fast ram and still have system overheads to deal with. I get the feeling the next gen will encourage some very cool leaps in the PC market in terms of hardware.
Click to expand...

Like i said in my last sentence not making any comparisons to the ps4, but it was more aimed at the fact you have nowhere near 8GB in your own system.

RAM is so cheap that most people who are building a custom pc usually go for 8GB "minimum" these days.

Also I do not think the RAM will be used to it's full capacity, in terms of specs, i reckon the CPU is the weakest part of the PS4, again it is more focused on number of cores rather than clock speed. they learnt their lesson that the cell was just far too difficult to program for because of it's complexity and number of cores and have gone for established tech this time round.

RAM > GPU > CPU

that's how i see the spec list for the ps4, the cpu imo is the weakest link and the RAM by far the strongest, the RAM is pioneering in terms of tech, not even top of the range pc's have that type of RAM as you say.

sure 2 of the cores may be used for the "system" one for background downloads and one for the OS most likely. that still leaves 6 cores free on the cpu for gaming. i don't think many games will utilise 6 cores that well, therefore it probably would have been better to go for a 6 core cpu with higher clock speeds, than an 8 core cpu with a low clock speed. even in 5 years time, i do not think any games will be able to utilise all those cores to capacity.

don't know much about the GPU, but people think it is weak, this has always been the case with any console released in terms of comparing it to pc hardware, therefore imo i do not think there is anything wrong with it as past GPU's have held up quite well, even though they were weak when compared to top end graphics card in the year of release.

i await to see the next microsoft's consoles specs to see how they match up to the ps4's. i hope they do not try and copy them but take their own programmers advice for future proofing the system.
 
the cpu isnt that weak. 8 cores running around the 1.6ghz mark (not sure as sony havent said officially that im aware of). and the ps4 has a separate chip that deals with background stuff, so downloading and social things (which has been said a few times by sony now, not sure if that same chip deals with the os though).

so not sure how weak it is in the grand scheme of things how weak it would be, as its all down to how the cpu actually works. just look at what the intel I5's did when they turned up, 2.6ghz and blowing 4ghz dual cores out of the water even though nothing was designed to use the multiple cores correctly (and lets be honest a lot still isnt).

so until we see real world benchmarks on the new cpu its hard to say how strong or weak it is, but just because its only supposed to be 1.6ghz i wouldnt right it off as a weak cpu.
 
The Running Man said:
If only they'd made ps3 1gb of ram can you imagine how good it would still be?
Click to expand...

Just too expensive at the time sadly. Remember how much flak the PS3 got for its price, even despite the launch units being sold at a loss.

You're right though, i remember reading a paper written by Guerrilla Games, explaining how they invented new ways of using Cell when developing Killzone 2. One of the main things they were excited about was that they had coded a SPU to effectively pre-process certain data before it was loading it into ram, this somehow made it load stupidly fast, allowing for high res textures to be fired into and out of the ram very, very quickly as the game progressed. This allowed for far higher quality textures than anyone envisaged possible given the PS3s lack of ram. Just imagine how much more impressive that technique would have been if they had double the amount of ram to play with. The Cell really was a beast in its time, it's just a shame the coding challenges and bottleneck of ram, a comparatively weak GPU and silly-slow blu-ray read speeds held it back.
 
GAC said:
the cpu isnt that weak. 8 cores running around the 1.6ghz mark (not sure as sony havent said officially that im aware of). and the ps4 has a separate chip that deals with background stuff, so downloading and social things (which has been said a few times by sony now, not sure if that same chip deals with the os though).

so not sure how weak it is in the grand scheme of things how weak it would be, as its all down to how the cpu actually works. just look at what the intel I5's did when they turned up, 2.6ghz and blowing 4ghz dual cores out of the water even though nothing was designed to use the multiple cores correctly (and lets be honest a lot still isnt).

so until we see real world benchmarks on the new cpu its hard to say how strong or weak it is, but just because its only supposed to be 1.6ghz i wouldnt right it off as a weak cpu.
Click to expand...

Way I think it works is when game is playing OS and everything else will be running on 2nd CPU, and when your just in OS minor things will be on 2nd CPU
 
ic1male said:
I kind of liked Ken Kutaragi's idea - rather than give the developers what they ask for, give them what they don't yet know they want. :D A bit like Steve Jobs.
Click to expand...

Hopefully they haven't neglected to give the developers something they actually need this time around! I am all for looking to the future, but the PS3 is the perfect example of, frankly, getting it wrong.

With that said, I love the PS3, it just had so many weak links in its design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom