Potential PS4.5 With Better CPU+GPU ?
- Thread starter Dicehunter
- Start date
The current gen consoles may appear on paper to be underpowered but they have one major architectural difference that causes a massive headache when working on ports.
Console have ONE area of volatile memory which is shared between the GPU and CPU. The CPU and GPU share the same address space, you don't need to move anything, you just pass pointers around.
PCs have system RAM and GPU RAM. Moving data between the two is expensive. It's why Arkham Knight wants 12GB of system memory so it can have everything loaded in system RAM to page in to the GPU as required.
Console have ONE area of volatile memory which is shared between the GPU and CPU. The CPU and GPU share the same address space, you don't need to move anything, you just pass pointers around.
PCs have system RAM and GPU RAM. Moving data between the two is expensive. It's why Arkham Knight wants 12GB of system memory so it can have everything loaded in system RAM to page in to the GPU as required.
Why do people get annoyed by the idea or proclaim they'll ditch sony if it happens? It makes no difference surely?!? People don't get all up in arms when a smaller model comes out, with no difference other than being smaller but they still trade in the consoles for the newer version. Shouldn't you EXPECT a performance increase when trading in for a newer version of a console?
Do the same people get angry when samsung release a new galaxy or apple release a new iphone? It makes calls and plays games the same as yours, only slightly quicker.
Maybe my perspective is massively different but i can't imagine the majority of customers (jonny from the pub who plays fifa on weekends or little tommy that got a console to play tomb raider) are going to care too much. I just don't get why people would get angry over such a thing....
Do the same people get angry when samsung release a new galaxy or apple release a new iphone? It makes calls and plays games the same as yours, only slightly quicker.
Maybe my perspective is massively different but i can't imagine the majority of customers (jonny from the pub who plays fifa on weekends or little tommy that got a console to play tomb raider) are going to care too much. I just don't get why people would get angry over such a thing....
Using a Bethesda game when they are known for always making crappy console ports isn't the best comparison
3rd cod for the new consoles and has the worst performance in cod history on consoles.
Last edited:
It's one thing having a slimline version or one that handles heat better than one that actually plays games better. Phones are different, they are first and foremost a phone but can do plenty of other things on the side so any upgrade or side version isn't really a necessity.
But if they brought out another console that was more powerful and made games run even better then it would be a necessity for pretty much everyone who owns one. Even if they still brought out games for both versions, anyone with the older version would be at a disadvantage over someone with the new system due to performance differences.
This is why having different tier consoles won't happen, one thing about consoles is you know everyone has the same performance and advantages/disadvantages. Compared to PC where someone has a PC that just about runs a game and suffers FPS problems and someone owns a Top Tier gaming pc and runs it smoothly. If that was in a FPS game like COD/Battlefield/Battlefront game then it would make the world of difference.
I think the only exception is things like the XIM which allow console players to play with a keyboard and mouse, no idea how many people use them but that is probably the only clear advantage you would get over a fellow console gamer.
/edit. In regards to the above posts on consoles compared to budget pc's it is all based on how the game is developed, engine used and the company in general. Most of the time a PC will be ahead, unless they have coded and used the console to it's full potential then it can be a lot closer or even ahead.
End of the day people don't buy consoles for it to compete with a PC, it's tech will always be inferior when it cannot be upgraded. But they buy it for ease of use, something they can sit on the couch with and chill with friends or even play by themselves without having to sit at a PC desk. It's more about ease of use than anything else and it's much cheaper, especially if you don't buy digital and sell your games after completing them.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 4,184
Tell me more about the recent Batman game
Also, nobody was proclaiming consoles out do PC on a consistent basis. People also pointed out all of the variables.
All you have done is show that a console provides great bang for buck so thanks for justifying our purchases.
Tell me more about the recent Batman game
Also, nobody was proclaiming consoles out do PC on a consistent basis. People also pointed out all of the variables.
All you have done is show that a console provides great bang for buck so thanks for justifying our purchases.
nobody was proclaiming that consoles out do pc ?
so someone posted that a budget pc outperforms the new consoles, several replied saying they do not, yet no one is proclaiming that consoles out do pc???
so what were they saying then?
great argument using batman btw.
people can go back and play the othe 3 in 1080p + at 60 FPS + while waiting for it to be fixed.
tell me how your new consoles run batman AA, AC and AO??
Who really cares what outdoes one another and in what resolution? If people really cared about that stuff they would always first and foremost go PC. It shows they kind of don't when most console games outsell PC games nowadays.
I have a more than capable PC but chose to play my console over it, just because ease of use and being able to play on a big TV and put my feet up. I am not hooked up on graphics, upscaling, downscaling, fps and or the way it runs compared to the other.
I have a more than capable PC but chose to play my console over it, just because ease of use and being able to play on a big TV and put my feet up. I am not hooked up on graphics, upscaling, downscaling, fps and or the way it runs compared to the other.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 4,184
Take deep breaths and repeat after me:
It's only gaming, it's not the be all and end all.
Now take 5 minutes and take time to reflect.
Be at peace
Take deep breaths and repeat after me:
It's only gaming, it's not the be all and end all.
Now take 5 minutes and take time to reflect.
Be at peace
lol.
just pointing out the hypocrisy bud
I don't think anyone with more than a single digit IQ cares about which is better tbh. If you prefer PC, play on PC. If you prefer console, play on console.
Anyone still droning on about how PC is superior is an idiot really.
Anyone still droning on about how PC is superior is an idiot really.
i dont think anyone with a single digit IQ could operate +maintain a pc.
im sure they could with a console though.
I think you're looking at it wrong to be fair. You're assumption is that a more powerful console would make the game play differently. That just isn't true. Having more overhead for better anti-aliasing or higher resolution textures in the same game doesn't put you at a disadvantage when a frame rate is locked to 30/60fps. If the consoles are hitting 30fps constantly then you can only improve on the visuals, which isn't a necessity like you claim it to be. Do people on the xbox enjoy the game any less if the ps4 has a slightly better aliasing on background elements? It just doesn't make sense.
People getting all butthurt over a bit of a raise in the visual fidelity of a game is ridiculous.
Either way, it won't happen so neither of us will ever know what they could potentially do.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,382
- Location
- UK.
Would be fine with this, base model basic PS4 cheap along side an elite type console for those who don't mind ponying up a bit more cash for better graphics etc.
Would cater for everyone, not sure why it would annoy some tbh.
As X86 is forward compatible older console could still play all the 'PS4' games albeit not at the same visual quality. This would be a sensible move as it's what PC, mobile, tablet do yearly.
Also NX is rumored to be a little power house, plus Steam machines. PlayStation might be wise to offer this multi tier system to counter future competitors, and cater for a wider audience / budget.
Would cater for everyone, not sure why it would annoy some tbh.
As X86 is forward compatible older console could still play all the 'PS4' games albeit not at the same visual quality. This would be a sensible move as it's what PC, mobile, tablet do yearly.
Also NX is rumored to be a little power house, plus Steam machines. PlayStation might be wise to offer this multi tier system to counter future competitors, and cater for a wider audience / budget.
But as already said, the challenge would be in actually getting across to consumers what the benefits are. People generally know the PS4 is more powerful but they're not going to understand why a "better PS4" is more powerful still, nor why it's worth the extra money (and it'd have to be a significant amount more to be a worthwhile endeavour). You're then also relying on developers to actually make use of that extra power and there'd be loads of complaints if a game looked or ran similarly on both configurations.
I really don't see there being much demand for such a thing anyway, and neither the Steam Machines nor Nintendo's next attempt are going to put much of a dent in Sony's lead.