• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

PS4 GPU?

I think I'll trust Carmack over some anonymous dudes with an ax to grind against PS4.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
oh, you mean the guy who promised to give PC gamers an awesome experience with Rage and admitted that he has been misguided in his thinking towards PCs while trying to promote rage?

States ID totally bonjacked the PC version
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/02/john-carmack-rage-apologies-doom-3-news-and-the-future

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/02/john-carmack-rage-apologies-doom-3-news-and-the-future

nice try though
Click to expand...
Are those supposed to be the same links?
 
No two different links but I guess I forgot to properly press CTR+C the second time :p
 
Blackstone said:
So we basically know nothing about the console. A 7850? That card is SLOW. What a nightmare. Another generation of jaggies. They're going to up FPS without a big increase in fidelity, most likely. Load it up with nongaming CPU intensive features. It will an improvement but they could do better than a 7850.

let's say it is a 7970m. That chip can't even do BF3 at 60fps in 1080P, let alone Crysis 3.
Click to expand...

You can't compare a closed system like a console to an open system like the PC.

Try running a game on your PC with the same specs that the xbox 360 has (which came out 8 years ago), the game will probably not even be playable on the PC!;);)
 
Hulk said:
You can't compare a closed system like a console to an open system like the PC.

Try running a game on your PC with the same specs that the xbox 360 has (which came out 8 years ago), the game will probably not even be playable on the PC!;);)
Click to expand...

Actually, this has been kinda proven wrong, using an hd 4000 as the comparable graphics card.

Remember that they used sub 720p no AA and the equivalent to low settings with a target frame rate of 30fps.

Pretty sure that i have seen multitude of links here, and maybe Eurogamer on their head to head articles.
 
Revdarian said:
Actually, this has been kinda proven wrong, using an hd 4000 as the comparable graphics card.

Remember that they used sub 720p no AA and the equivalent to low settings with a target frame rate of 30fps.

Pretty sure that i have seen multitude of links here, and maybe Eurogamer on their head to head articles.
Click to expand...

Post a few links i'm curious.
 
JohnDoe9541 said:
Post a few links i'm curious.
Click to expand...

Heya was out of town, well i couldn't find the direct comparisons right away, so we will have to do it the long and roundabout way of posting the different links to the actual console performance being sub 720p @ 30fps from the Eurogamer Face Offs:
http://www.eurogamer.net/?type=face-off

And the review of the hd4000:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5878/...ation-realtime-igpu-clocks-on-ulv-vs-quadcore
With a higher resolution, higher quality (medium on pc is higher quality at least texture wise than what consoles can generate at the moment) the HD 4000 outputs enough framerates, except for the case of BF3 that requires Low settings to generate the same gameplay quality.

You can also go to youtube and just look for hd4000 720p vids to use as comparison.

For info about the actual resolutions at which the xbox360 and the ps3 run games you can use this link:
http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
 
Plague_Injected said:
Before you start screaming about it not being the actual Far Cry game, Instincts: Predator is an Ubisoft-produced Far Cry mod, using the exact same engine and assets.
Click to expand...

Different developer and yeah it uses the same engine that Crytek created for PC. Hardly a fair example of what X360 could do.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
a 7870 in a PS4 is not going to outperform a similar setup in a PC especially if the platform uses UMA...
Click to expand...

What the hell? I told you your E series AMD APU memory overclock example has zero relevancy to PS4. UMA in a console is a good thing. FYI when Sony surveyed developers when starting to design PS4, UMA was at the top of everyones list.

Gotta love Hard Forum posters who think they know more than the engineers that designed the system.
 
8GB of memory. Compared to 512Mb. Much larger worlds, fewer loads, higher textures. Thats what I care about it. 8GB of ram makes me as happy as could be with the new consoles.
 
Cali3350 said:
8GB of memory. Compared to 512Mb. Much larger worlds, fewer loads, higher textures. Thats what I care about it. 8GB of ram makes me as happy as could be with the new consoles.
Click to expand...

8GB of >shared memory<.
 
JohnDoe9541 said:
Post a few links i'm curious.
Click to expand...

all you have to do is search the forum and there will be multiple entries by myself and others that utterly prove false the notion that a PC avaialble at the same time as the 360 cannot run the same games

Back whent he 360 was released an ATi 1800XL was already handing the console it's rear end and that was the mid ranged part.

All one has to do is compare Doom 3 on the console vs the hacked up 360 version.... 1600*1200 vs 720p and much lower detail lol...

360 for fear series

F.E.A.R. 1 = 1280x720 (2xAA) + slight blur?
F.E.A.R. 2 = 1280x720 (2xAA)
F.E.A.R. 3 = 1280x720

Radeon 1800XL lol

http://www.techspot.com/reviews/hardware/sapphire_radeonx1800xl/x1800xl-3.shtml

(results are on an ANCIENT PENTIUM 4 at 3.6Ghz)

Stereophile said:
What the hell? I told you your E series AMD APU memory overclock example has zero relevancy to PS4. UMA in a console is a good thing. FYI when Sony surveyed developers when starting to design PS4, UMA was at the top of everyones list.

Gotta love Hard Forum posters who think they know more than the engineers that designed the system.
Click to expand...

lol that's why AMD E series APUs can hardly even keep up with dedicated low end 64bit cards lol

I know you are not the brightest one here but this is what sony and MS asked:

We can give you X amt of performance, what would you like to see?

Developer answers: We want simplified development tools and a console that is easy to program for.

They did not say they wanted UMA above that lol.... I guess you are not familliar with marketing speak......
 
Last edited:
You have no credibility to say Carmack is wrong. None of your links have proved anything. The whole point is that consoles running dedicated code are more efficient than PC. You can't disprove that with benchmarks of PC to console ports.

You're utterly clueless and foolish to bring up a low end AMD APU in a PC as some indictment against 8GB of unified GDDR5 in PS4. It's a joke.

An X1800XL was certainly not midrange. It was an underclocked X1800XT and cost $400 at launch. The X1600 was midrange.

I know your agenda. It eats you up inside that PS4's hw is so obviously superior to Durango. And you're grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to put PS4 in its place relative to PC.
 
^no it's not

keep drinking that Koolaide though.

UMA has ALWAYS BEEN PROVEN TO BE SLOWER than dedicated counterparts of equal performance.
 
Whatever this thing turns out to be it is going to rule gaming for what...8 years?
 
Stereophile said:
There is no such thing. No PC uses GDDR5 for system ram. PS4's 8GB GDDR5 UMA is state of the art until 3d stacking becomes viable.
Click to expand...

lol you not too familliar with Intel's current lineup are you? They are by no means bandwidth starved.......even with "only DDR3" ram....that it does NOT have to share with a video processor unless you go for the intergrated graphics route and then there is a performance penalty...that GDDR5 would not be able to alleviate when you started pushing the system hard.
 
well it seems like a big step up from what we've had for what seems like forever....hopefully it's enough to bring graphics to the next level, since we seem to have been stuck at crysis level graphics (or worse) for a long time now.. hard to get excited about some of the rehashed stuff developers are putting out, with consolitis and the lack of quicksaves in games.. I don't think graphics processing power even among high ends graphics cards is going to make any huge leaps nor is processing power over the next 5 years or so, we've hit a stagnation point of sorts especially in CPUs, while companies focus on mass marketing more power efficient solutions for the masses that like their farmville on their phones or whatever... and lack of serious competition from AMD. The masses just don't care about SLI and spending thousands to max out their games, thus game developers aren't focused on that market.... the best we can hope for is mod friendly games like skyrim, and dedicated modders that have put out some impressive HD texture mods.

I remember thinking the PS3 was outdated already by release... so it's nothing new... with dedicated hardware and the added memory they should do alright with these consoles.
 
Last edited:
There is no doubt that it's going to be good, but it isn't going to be midrange PC good and that is right in line with what the 360 and PS3 could do against a mid ranged 2005 PC
 
I can't keep track of your argument. First according to you, Carmack is "full of shit" because you don't think consoles are more efficient than a PC with the same hardware. And on the last page you're saying a console will actually be weaker than a PC with an identical GPU, if the console has unified memory ? Even a large cache of GDDR5 ?

You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm right about your agenda. I remember your screen name from years ago when the PS3 X360 console war was active. There was no doubt then or now you have something against Sony. Which is your business, but you can't even make a logically coherent attack on the PS4. Keep trying. ;)
 
^ did you get confused when I told you that UMA is not as efficient as dedicated processor and video memory when it comes to flat out performance?

Let me spell it out for you:

CONSOLES ARE BUILT USING THE CHEAPEST STUFF THEY CAN GET. If it was cheaper to use dedicated parts with dedicated memory for each part, they would do it. They have a price target to hit and AMDs APU allows them to do this while getting decent (not stellar) performance.

That's OK, one day you will get it.....

BTW the PS3 is inferior to the 360 when it comes to most games. They often look worse on the PS3 due to the difficulty associated with the console hardware and Sony's development tools. Sony is on record stating tthat they intentionally made the console hard to program for

linky here for you

http://news.cnet.com/sony-ps3-is-hard-to-develop-for-on-purpose/#!

Kaz Hirai said:
"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?"
Click to expand...

AS for John Carmack

Consoles are the greatest

http://www.ripten.com/2011/08/14/john-carmack-thinks-the-ps3-is-the-second-best-console-ever-made/

flip

Consoles are not the greatest and we should have focused on the PC more for the decelopment of Rage.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/02/john-carmack-rage-apologies-doom-3-news-and-the-future
http://www.slashgear.com/john-carmack-says-ps4-xbox-720-nothing-to-be-excited-about-21235224/

flop expected when consoles are released and he has to promote his crap once again.
 
it is safe to say that the ps4 will be a noticeable improvement over the ps3. It is also safe to say that you won't be able to build a comparable pc at the ps4's estimated launch price ($400).
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
^ did you get confused when I told you that UMA is not as efficient as dedicated processor and video memory when it comes to flat out performance?
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about. Keep grasping at straws.

Digital Foundry said:
Replicating the 8GB unified ram of the Sony console will be impossible.

The problem with Windows is that there is always a DirectX type 'layer' between the game and the actual hardware. This marshals and controls the movement of textures/shaders/vertices from the main PC memory to the memory on the GPU. Unless PC games programmers get direct control of the hardware (very unlikely), you will always be fighting against this issue. You never know where your textures are and when they will be uploaded to the GPU, which can cause stalls or micro-stutters in a frame as resources are shunted between the memory types.
Click to expand...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen
 
I don't know where OGL stands with this, but concurrent resource creation is well supported in DX11 (and drivers). Resource handling can be done async and stall free, good for streaming systems.

I'm not sure if you've realized this yet, but PC has not just sat and stagnated over the last decade, notable problems of the past have been improved upon. Though there's still too much invested in legacy DX9 / 32 bit codebases, so we're just stuck spinning our wheels for the time being in many cases. Somewhat ironically, the next gen consoles will probably bring good improvments to the PC side of things, as it'll be x86 (x64) across the board for one, I suspect threading will become more important (and maybe multi-threaded rendering will become as useful as it should be), legacy code will be ditched in favor of the new and shiny, so on an so forth.


edit: engrish how spell make sentence goods
 
Last edited:
YeuEmMaiMai said:
^ did you get confused when I told you that UMA is not as efficient as dedicated processor and video memory when it comes to flat out performance?

Let me spell it out for you:

CONSOLES ARE BUILT USING THE CHEAPEST STUFF THEY CAN GET. If it was cheaper to use dedicated parts with dedicated memory for each part, they would do it. They have a price target to hit and AMDs APU allows them to do this while getting decent (not stellar) performance.

That's OK, one day you will get it.....

BTW the PS3 is inferior to the 360 when it comes to most games. They often look worse on the PS3 due to the difficulty associated with the console hardware and Sony's development tools. Sony is on record stating tthat they intentionally made the console hard to program for

linky here for you

http://news.cnet.com/sony-ps3-is-hard-to-develop-for-on-purpose/#!



AS for John Carmack

Consoles are the greatest

http://www.ripten.com/2011/08/14/john-carmack-thinks-the-ps3-is-the-second-best-console-ever-made/

flip

Consoles are not the greatest and we should have focused on the PC more for the decelopment of Rage.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/02/john-carmack-rage-apologies-doom-3-news-and-the-future
http://www.slashgear.com/john-carmack-says-ps4-xbox-720-nothing-to-be-excited-about-21235224/

flop expected when consoles are released and he has to promote his crap once again.
Click to expand...

Dude come on ports on the ps3 have been pretty much the same quality wise for a few years now and the ones that haven't were just lazy ports and everybody pretty much knows that at this point. I play my 360 a lot more than my ps3 but I know the best looking games are on the ps3, killzone,uncharted, god of war, those are the elite when it comes to eyecandy this gen.

But yeah Sony did bank on the cell thinking it would start a new trend but ultimately it was just to complicated or to much of a pain in the ass to develop for.
 
^ OK whatever makes you happy but time and time again when two games are ported the PS3 version almost always looks inferior (I also own both systems and see this first hand) due to blurrier textures and inferior scaler (it's busted)

Two examples from my collection of games

Afro Samuri has rendering errors on the PS3 that are not present on the 360 and same for little ninja...
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
^ OK whatever makes you happy but time and time again when two games are ported the PS3 version almost always looks inferior (I also own both systems and see this first hand) due to blurrier textures and inferior scaler (it's busted)

Two examples from my collection of games

Afro Samuri has rendering errors on the PS3 that are not present on the 360 and same for little ninja...
Click to expand...

I'd say it's 50/50. Dragon Age, Darksiders, Battlefield 3 and even the new Dead Island Riptide look or play better on PS3. Riptide/Darksiders had more screen tearing on 360.
 
Something I've wondered about is if the PS3 is so hard to program for why are there so many more good exclusives or it? I have both systems but outside of HALO and Gears there are not not many exclusives for xbox .I don't count Kinect games.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
^ OK whatever makes you happy but time and time again when two games are ported the PS3 version almost always looks inferior (I also own both systems and see this first hand) due to blurrier textures and inferior scaler (it's busted)

Two examples from my collection of games

Afro Samuri has rendering errors on the PS3 that are not present on the 360 and same for little ninja...
Click to expand...

Yeah an Afro came out 5 years ago....great game though.
 
quimby999 said:
Something I've wondered about is if the PS3 is so hard to program for why are there so many more good exclusives or it? I have both systems but outside of HALO and Gears there are not not many exclusives for xbox .I don't count Kinect games.
Click to expand...

Being harder to program has nothing to do with this. Exclusives are due to 1st party studios and Sony has a lot more than MS.
 
Blackstone said:
So we basically know nothing about the console. A 7850? That card is SLOW. What a nightmare. Another generation of jaggies. They're going to up FPS without a big increase in fidelity, most likely. Load it up with nongaming CPU intensive features. It will an improvement but they could do better than a 7850.

let's say it is a 7970m. That chip can't even do BF3 at 60fps in 1080P, let alone Crysis 3.
Click to expand...

ok guys someone please build a pc with the same specs as PS4 and then we'll see which system (PS4 or PC) the game runs better on.

Or what you could do is build a PC with the same specs as the XBox 360 (which is like what 5 years old now?) and see which system the game runs better on.

point is fellas if a PC and console have the same specs the console will always run better for god's sake because it's a closed system and not a PC with 100 tasks running.
 
Hulk said:
ok guys someone please build a pc with the same specs as PS4 and then we'll see which system (PS4 or PC) the game runs better on.

Or what you could do is build a PC with the same specs as the XBox 360 (which is like what 5 years old now?) and see which system the game runs better on.

point is fellas if a PC and console have the same specs the console will always run better for god's sake because it's a closed system and not a PC with 100 tasks running.
Click to expand...

This.
 
With the same amount of money a gaming PC is better than a non-gaming PC plus a console. Almost everyone who has a console also has a PC. How many people only own a console, and no PC?

Not only can the gaming PC beat the console + non-gaming PC in start up cost, but the games are also cheaper. So you save a lot of money in the long run by playing PC games.

A gaming PC is better than a console both in terms of graphics, and costs.
 
^ especially considering you can get most PC titles for less than $25 within 8 weeks of launch
 
Hulk said:
ok guys someone please build a pc with the same specs as PS4 and then we'll see which system (PS4 or PC) the game runs better on.

Or what you could do is build a PC with the same specs as the XBox 360 (which is like what 5 years old now?) and see which system the game runs better on.

point is fellas if a PC and console have the same specs the console will always run better for god's sake because it's a closed system and not a PC with 100 tasks running.
Click to expand...

I don't know man. I am somewhat optimistic about the PS4 being a very good console, but your PC remarks don't seem accurate. If properly tuned, a PC running a moderately good card is just as good if not much btter than a console. Not to mention that most current gen games run at 720P (which is fine).

I love them both (PC and Console) for different reasons. And like a sucker will probably buy both PS4 and 720 on launch day like a fricking moron.
 
It's a given a console will be more efficient than a PC with identical specs. Also some don't fully appreciate that a closed box lets developers target that exact minimum. Whereas most PC titles support cards with widely varying ability. There have been tons of developers talking about how forward looking PS4 is, I fully expect its intrinsic efficiency and customizations and unprecedented 8GB gddr5 UMA will let multiplatform PS4 games look very close to PC graphics for the first couple years at least. The textures will always have parity, but I worry performance could eventually take a hit. Something tells me GTA6 might still be only 25fps, and like 20fps 680p on Durango. LOL I think the first party games will rival anything for many years. That's why I would probably take a PS4 and non gaming PC over a [H] system. I like console exclusives better. But I will still keep something updated enough to handle the new total war game later this year.
 
Hulk said:
Or what you could do is build a PC with the same specs as the XBox 360 (which is like what 5 years old now?) and see which system the game runs better on.
Click to expand...

Before PS3 release, I was running a PC with 7800GTX 512 & AMD X2 4800+ and it ran all multi-platform games at higher quality, frame rate, and/or resolution than the PS3. The RSX in the PS3 was a slightly modified 7800GTX core, so while not a direct comparison, I'd consider it close enough. Up until last year, this was my primary PC, and I did play modern game releases on it over the many years I owned it.

PC & Console are both restricted by the theoretical limits of the CPU and GPU hardware which cannot be surpassed, and often nowhere close to being reached. So while a game optimized for a Console has a better chance of coming closer to theoretical hardware limits, it's usually not so great that it gives a noticeable advantage over a PC with similar specs because of Amdahl's Law. The NVIDIA 8800 series GPUs released a couple months before the PS3, far surpasses anything the PS3 & Xbox 360 could produce graphics:performance wise, even to this day. PS4's GPU could yield some interesting results, just for the fact that PC games up to this point are not optimized with APU w/ UMA in mind. The PS4 architecture should allow improved efficiently of the GPU, but compared to something like an Ivy Bridge or upcoming Haswell + discrete GPU, it will be bottlenecked by CPU performance compared to PCs. How much this will matter will depend on the game.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top