Underwhelemd by the 'next' generation of consoles and games?

[RumbleBee]

I've been a PC Gamer for a number of years and I remember when the current consoles came out. Spec comparison aside I do remember playing Call of Duty 2 on both. To be fair the 360 version looked amazing, but the PC version was every bit as good on my medium spec machine at time.

I do think it's a shame there are reports of the Xbox One not being able to output at 1080p for some games. Maybe things will get better, but in these situations don't things normally get worse. Sure the developers can get their heads around the systems more, but as the demand for better graphics increases surely these systems are going to struggle even more as the years go by.

Maybe it's only the exclusives where they can shine.

I'm still considering a PS4.

 

[Worthy]

In these days of multiple GFX cards per PC, new consoles were never going to be as fast, but they don't need to be. They're gaming machines that have to run a max of 1080p. A high end PC nowadays can do >60fps at triple that. No point in even trying to compete, give them enough power to do what they need to do and leave it at that.

 

[spoffle]

Here's a link for Spoffle and co..

"Nvidia: Consoles Can No Longer Surpass PC Graphics"

Ask yourself this, why would Nvidia be saying Consoles Can No Longer Surpass PC if they hadn't done so in the past?

Tony Tamasi : Nvidia senior vice president.

I never said they hadn't in the past. This is your issue, you can't separate "graphics" with the chip that is producing them.

Consoles can do more with less than PCs. You cannot directly compare the hardware because it doesn't work like that.

Why have you yet again ignored the fact that the PS3 came out at the same time as the 8800GTX?

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-consoles-gpu-graphics-power,24390.html

So yeah, Nvidia acknowledge it, but somehow Spoffle knows different

This gen is def more of a refresh, let's just hope it's shortlived. Phones will be more powerful in a few years

Since when has anyone listened to nVidia on this sort of stuff? nVidia are known for talking smack and lying about things, it's what they're like as a company.

They're butthurt and have been displaying cognitive dissonance about the consoles, "they're crap and we didn't even want anything to do with them anyway".

nVidia is a marketing company first, and a hardware company second.

You are also not responding to points people make, you are instead substituting them with your own version of reality.

 

[RumbleBee]

I also wouldnt rely on nVidia links, they arent particularly happy to be frozen out of the massive console contracts and so have spent quite a lot of PR revolving around how ahead PC gaming is compared to console gaming. Theyve got quite an axe to grind so dont seek impartial quotes there

ps3ud0

Were they frozen out, or did they opt out?
I'm sure they could have sided with Microsoft or Sony had they wanted to. Maybe not though. I don't know the story.

 

[spoffle]

Im confused why youve quoted my post and then gone on a tangent that doesnt even follow my point...

And a lot of what youve said is hyperbole and doesnt even address the point that Boomstick777 was trying to make

ps3ud0

Why not address which parts are hyperbole? Because I haven't exaggerated anything.

 

[Aeleys]

Console wars! woooooooooooooo

 

[james.miller]

Were they frozen out, or did they opt out?
I'm sure they could have sided with Microsoft or Sony had they wanted to. Maybe not though. I don't know the story.

from memory it a result of the soured relationship with sony regarding patent fees and so on for the ps3, at least to begin with. This gen though, Ati just had it all sewn up. Nvidia couldnt provide a cpu/gpu solution and rather than try, they just told us they weren't interested. Like anybody believes that

 

[spengos]

Not sure i agree that consoles were more powerful than pcs on launch. I remember playing Battlefiled 2 in 2005 at 1600 x 1200 @50fps which was pushing a lot more pixels than a 360 could.

The PS3 cell cpu was probably better than any cpu at the time but getting the most out of it was a huge struggle and the rest of the console wasnt as impressive. Having way less than 512 mb RAM available didnt help especially later in the generation.

In any case, the problem is that even if consoles were better on launch, they wont be for long. 6 months later and a high end pc will crush a console.

I believe we've reached a plateau in graphics anyway. HD is pretty much where its going to stay for a while. Why go higher? This next generation needs to be about more than graphics and i think the devs know this.

 

[ps3ud0]

Why not address which parts are hyperbole? Because I haven't exaggerated anything.

Considering you went with the 'PS4 10x the graphical power of the PS3', yeah I was right to consider it hyperbole - unless you really believe the PR spiel and discount quantifiable metric like Tflops or something...

Were they frozen out, or did they opt out?
I'm sure they could have sided with Microsoft or Sony had they wanted to. Maybe not though. I don't know the story.

Honestly I havent got a clue what happened and if they were approached or whatever, at end of the day nVidia have their own agenda to put forward now they arent powering any of the next gen consoles - to put PC gaming on a pedestal isnt unexpected from them

ps3ud0

 

[spoffle]

Were they frozen out, or did they opt out?
I'm sure they could have sided with Microsoft or Sony had they wanted to. Maybe not though. I don't know the story.

They want people to believe that they opted out. They didn't really.

It's widely known that companies don't like working with nVidia, because of what nVidia is like. It's all about control.

Sony has had multiple gripes in the past, nVidia GPU related which I would expect was enough to mean that nVidia didn't really get a look in.

nVidia cost Sony mega money with the whole G92/"bumpgate" thing, and nVidia were not at all co-operative with Sony when it came to manufacturing the PS3's GPU. Sony wanted to have the GPU on the same package as the CPU to reduce costs and nVidia wouldn't let them do it, they demanded the GPU had to be on its own (with its own heatspreader emblazoned in the nVidia logo).

Essentially, nVidia didn't let Sony have what they wanted, and AMD seemingly had no issues with doing things the way Sony wanted.

If people understood the etymology behind nVidia's name, they'd start seeing nVidia in a very different light.

 

[OpenToSuggestions]

I will get a PS4 as it will be a cheap all-round media centre.
The current Xbox came out 8 years ago, so £330 on the PS4 is a bargain.

I love PC games, but from time to time I like to cabbage out on the sofa on a games console. No installs (normally anyway!), no drivers, no BSOD.....you just put the DVD in and it works.

The PS4/One have not got me that excited tbh.

 

[rare]

I have a PS4 on order, because I will like to play the exclusives. It also looks like a really nice piece of hardware, unified GDDR5, better specs than an xbox. It also looks nice, and has a small footprint. Plus, since Nintendo had always been my go to system as a kid, up to the Gamecube, I then moved over to Playstation and have always loved the brand.

My PC already kills both on specs but thats not the point. All being well my PS4 will last just as long as my PS3, that is the life of the system. Which is pretty awesome value for money in my book, especially when I consider what I have spent on PC's in the same time (enough to make me cry). Like OpenToSuggestions says, you put the game in, and no worries. No messing around. Sometimes I like that. Sometimes I like messing around on the pc.

But PC's will always be massively ahead, and in 5-6 years time they will be so much more advanced than the consoles it will be untrue. But it doesn't matter, best of both worlds!

 

[Thesnipergecko]

A console has a set configuration of hardware which allows developers to push every last inch of power out of it.

My experience over the last 10 years of gaming I have noticed a lack of effort from the developers when it comes to porting a game to PC. They are often poorly optimized and run like crap.

 

[RumbleBee]

If people understood the etymology behind nVidia's name, they'd start seeing nVidia in a very different light.

Interesting. Thanks.
Would still love a Titan though

Lets just hope some great, big budget games come from these new consoles. At the moment it seems to me it's the indie games that are shining.

I suspect Micro Transaction's will be elevated to new levels over the next few years and spoil everything to the point where most games are considerably less playable without paying more than the price of the game.

 

[spoffle]

Considering you went with the 'PS4 10x the graphical power of the PS3', yeah I was right to consider it hyperbole - unless you really believe the PR spiel and discount quantifiable metric like Tflops or something...

ps3ud0

I didn't reference any marketing rubbish, I pay no attention to that.

The GPU of the PS4 has 10x the peak computational power of the PS3's GPU.

The 7850 GPU's peak processing power is 1761.28 GFLOPs.

The 7800GTX (which the PS3 doesn't even use) is 165 GFLOPs.

The GPU the PS3 has is more likely to be around the 120-130 GFLOPs.

Either way you look at it, there's around a ten fold difference between them.

So tell me more about how I'm discounting a quantifiable metric like TFLOPs.

 

[spoffle]

A console has a set configuration of hardware which allows developers to push every last inch of power out of it.

My experience over the last 10 years of gaming I have noticed a lack of effort from the developers when it comes to porting a game to PC. They are often poorly optimized and run like crap.

Did you know that "ports" don't actually exist, and what you are talking about is just pure laziness due to a multitude of reasons?

 

[ps3ud0]

I didn't reference any marketing rubbish, I pay no attention to that.

The GPU of the PS4 has 10x the peak computational power of the PS3's GPU.

The 7850 GPU's peak processing power is 1761.28 GFLOPs.

The 7800GTX (which the PS3 doesn't even use) is 165 GFLOPs.

The GPU the PS3 has is more likely to be around the 120-130 GFLOPs.

Either way you look at it, there's around a ten fold difference between them.

So tell me more about how I'm discounting a quantifiable metric like TFLOPs.

So the Cell doesnt matter at all in your assessment? Honestly I think you need to read up on the PS3 because Im not the first thats needed to correct you on the PS3s GPU sub-system

EDIT: TBH Im reacting to your posting style, but no it isnt 10x more powerful, more like 5x (if that) - its what I took as hyperbole; but considering your misinformation I can understand that wasnt intentional...

ps3ud0

 

[spoffle]

So the Cell doesnt matter at all in your assessment? Honestly I think you need to read up on the PS3 because Im not the first thats needed to correct you on the PS3s GPU sub-system

EDIT: TBH Im reacting to your posting style, but no it isnt 10x more powerful, more like 5x (if that) - its what I took as hyperbole; but considering your misinformation I can understand that wasnt intentional...

ps3ud0

I'm not misinformed, I was talking about the GPUs of each system, and I was simplifying it as well. But between the two GPUs, the PS4's is 10x more powerful than the PS3's. That's a fact.

I'm not discounting the CELL at all, but it's not directly comparable due to the difficult nature developers had with getting the performance out of it.

That's ignoring the fact that the PS3's GPU isn't built on a unified shader architecture either, which makes getting the performance out of it harder again. The PS4's GPU having a unified shader architecture would make a big difference in itself.

 

[ps3ud0]

The PS4's graphical capability is around 10x more than that of the PS3, with a much more powerful CPU that is much easily to program for, and 24x more RAM.

Tell me more about the PS4 being not much of a step up compared to the PS3.

They haven't compromised on hardware, they have instead opted to go for somewhat off the shelf hardware instead of trying to design crazy over the top chips (Cell BE et al) that might have the theoretical performance on paper, but may as well be much less powerful because developers struggle to make use of it fully.

They have realised that it isn't hardware that differentiates between platforms, but the available software. For example, whilst I find the performance differences between the Xbox One and PS4 an interesting subject academically, it doesn't mean much to me on a practical level because I am not interested in the games on offer for the Xbox One, so there was never a choice for me to make between the two.

The same goes for those interested in Xbox One games. The PS4 is demonstrably more powerful, but that doesn't mean a thing if the games you want to play are only available on Xbox.

No spoffle you are wrong face it; graphical capability as you posted != GPU and considering you are anal enough to pick up TSGs point regards porting, I think Im on solid ground with regards to you not being ultra-efficient in making in your point

A console has a set configuration of hardware which allows developers to push every last inch of power out of it.

My experience over the last 10 years of gaming I have noticed a lack of effort from the developers when it comes to porting a game to PC. They are often poorly optimized and run like crap.

Did you know that "ports" don't actually exist, and what you are talking about is just pure laziness due to a multitude of reasons?

We can all be facetious now cant we . So when you mean GPU, say GPU - simples

ps3ud0

 

[james.miller]

I think we all knew he was talking about the gpu anyway, not sure why you'd take issue when he's already clarified that. As for 'the cell can do fancy graphics stuff' weeellllll.....How much difference does that really make? It still came off worse than the 360 in most cases.