PS4 GPU?

[rudy]

Different developer and yeah it uses the same engine that Crytek created for PC. Hardly a fair example of what X360 could do.

All engines are created for PCs what's your point, its up to the company to optimize anything, but at the end of every console year we all know most of them don't bother to optimize much because it isn't worth it. Instead they just turn down settings and remove features, then upscale.

I also think all the console makers are stupid, last generation they basically shoved everything together and targeted 720p or lower resolutions, The problem was they did this right when 1080p sets were coming into prime time, it was completely stupid to say the least, and what do you know they are almost perfectly repeating it again, now its 4k and they will have just caught up to 1080p... Maybe I bet lots of devs actually still run 720p. IMO they should have waited or pumped more hardware into these. The consoles are horribly out of sync with technology they are bringing their systems online for the end of a product cycle instead of for the beginning of one.

 

[Stereophile]

4k screens won't have a lot of market penetration for years. Your average household HDTV won't be 4k for a long time. ANY hw they could put in a console in 2013 wouldn't handle 4k anyways. It's not like 2005-2006 was to 720p and 1080p. Broadcast just went to full time digital HD a few years ago, consoles really didn't need to support 4k gaming. But I have heard PS4 will output 4k video, like movies. But I will be very happy if most PS4 games are native 1080p.

 

[Mozex]

The problem was they did this right when 1080p sets were coming into prime time, it was completely stupid to say the least, and what do you know they are almost perfectly repeating it again, now its 4k and they will have just caught up to 1080p... Maybe I bet lots of devs actually still run 720p. IMO they should have waited or pumped more hardware into these.

When 360 and PS3 were released they matched high-end PC's rather well, so the only thing they could have done to target 1080P was make them bigger and hotter and more expensive with some SLI style solution OR wait quite a few years until hardware was ready. I'm glad they didn't wait.

IMO consoles don't need to target 4K sets. I have better than 20/20 vision and its often non-obvious whether a signal is 720 or 1080 at the distance I sit from my 52" television.

 

[teletran8]

I'd actually say 1080p has come into it's prime just now this last year for the mainstream. I'd also guess that 4k will only be popular with the rich elite and the hardcore movie theater aficionado types for at least the next 2 years. What is it like 50 % of USA people are on welfare/food stamps? Yeah add them numbers up with the people barley over the poverty level and 4k won't be (taking off) anytime soon. We would be lucky to see a 4k PS4 game imho late into its cycle if not by the PS5. Now movies in 4k maybe with updates down the line, highly unlikely straight out of the box day 1.

TLDR: To much poverty and taxing in USA to drop 5k on a 55 inch 4k when a 55 inch 1080p starts @ 700 usd or less. You could buy a nice 1080p and a nice used car lol or just a 4k tv set, think about it. Elites only.

 

[Rizen]

There is no hardware capable of 4k at 30fps that they can box in a console. A 7990 cannot run 4k resolution @ 30fps, and that costs more than twice what the PS4 will retail for. Given that the cheapest 4k set I have seen is $5000 for a 55 inch, and I can buy a 70 inch 1080 LCD TV for $1800, I don't see 4K getting much market penetration for years. Content is still way behind.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

When 360 and PS3 were released they matched high-end PC's rather well, so the only thing they could have done to target 1080P was make them bigger and hotter and more expensive with some SLI style solution OR wait quite a few years until hardware was ready. I'm glad they didn't wait.

IMO consoles don't need to target 4K sets. I have better than 20/20 vision and its often non-obvious whether a signal is 720 or 1080 at the distance I sit from my 52" television.

Telling a lie many times over does not make it true.

Neither the PS3 nor 360 could not even match a mid ranged gaming PC let a lone a high end one at the time of their release. (this forum has multiple links showing the comparison but you are going to have to use that search thing to find them).

There is no hardware capable of 4k at 30fps that they can box in a console. A 7990 cannot run 4k resolution @ 30fps, and that costs more than twice what the PS4 will retail for. Given that the cheapest 4k set I have seen is $5000 for a 55 inch, and I can buy a 70 inch 1080 LCD TV for $1800, I don't see 4K getting much market penetration for years. Content is still way behind.

LOL walnut?

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/04/24/amd_radeon_hd_7990_video_card_review/3

4K UHD is a resolution of 3840 pixels × 2160 = 8.3mp at 30fps would be 249Million pixels per second

Radeon 7990 running 5760*1200 or 6.9Mpix per frame at 61.4fps FXAA and 16x AF = 424Million pixels per second.

I'll agree with the rest of your statement though

 

[Mozex]

Telling a lie many times over does not make it true.

The fact remains that the 360 and ps3 were hot and noisy and loud and expensive to produce. If the consoles were to have hit a 1080p target they would have had to wait a few years.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

The fact remains that the 360 and ps3 were hot and noisy and loud and expensive to produce. If the consoles were to have hit a 1080p target they would have had to wait a few years.

what in the world does that have to do with B.S. statement that you made earlier?


Absolutely nothing

and my original 360 was not that noisy and neither is the jasper that replaced it

 

[Rizen]

Telling a lie many times over does not make it true.

Neither the PS3 nor 360 could not even match a mid ranged gaming PC let a lone a high end one at the time of their release. (this forum has multiple links showing the comparison but you are going to have to use that search thing to find them).



LOL walnut?

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/04/24/amd_radeon_hd_7990_video_card_review/3

4K UHD is a resolution of 3840 pixels × 2160 = 8.3mp at 30fps would be 249Million pixels per second

Radeon 7990 running 5760*1200 or 6.9Mpix per frame at 61.4fps FXAA and 16x AF = 424Million pixels per second.

I'll agree with the rest of your statement though

First off, I said "boxed in a console",

Secondly from your own link:

Interestingly, in AMD's press presentation briefing we found this slide. It says: "It can also play Tomb Raider in 3840x2160 with TressFX hair and max settings." AMD is claiming playable performance in Tomb Raider with TressFX enabled at a resolution of 3840x2160. We wanted to test this ourselves, and found where Tomb Raider stores its graphics settings in the registry. We attempted to force 3840x2160, unfortunately the game would not start at this resolution. It would error out and left us at the desktop. Therefore, we are not able to directly test this resolution and scenario as the slide depicts. However, we can make an educated guess based on our experiences at 5760x1200.

If we calculate the pixels tested at our resolution of 5760x1200 we come to a total pixel count of 6,912,000. That is roughly 6.9 million pixels. Now, we found that at 5760x1200 that we had to disable TressFX to make the game playable. With TressFX enabled, there were scenes that were in the lower 30's and even in the upper 20's at 5760x1200. If we were to change the resolution to 3840x2160 that would be a total pixel count of 8,294,400. That is roughly 8.2 million pixels, 19% more pixels than we had at 5760x1200. That means that resolution is going to be even more demanding than our tested 5760x1200. Given the fact that TressFX isn't even playable at 5760x1200, it isn't going to be playable with 1,382,400 more pixels.

They tested a few games at max settings and 4K, none were playable. Sure, you could turn graphics options down, but either way you're talking a $1000 GPU that uses close to 300w. Not an option for a console.

 

[rudy]

Umm if you turn graphics settings down then that's exactly what consoles have always done, plus NVidia shield claims to play games at 4k.

4k is just a number lots of ways to get there, are you going to be able to max out BF4, probably not but its still better to have the output capabilities in a console generation that will start shipping at the same time 4k tvs start shipping in decent numbers. Say you want to run a slightly less graphically intense game at native resolution whats wrong with that?

The reality is the 1080p console generation never ever got to play their games in 1080p and maybe the 4k generation will never get to to play their games at 4k thanks to bad timing and cheap tactics.

If you consider that SONY was able to make a profit on the PS3 generation by the time all was said and done with the at the time very expensive blu ray why couldn't they add a little more money to this generation and make it a stand out feature.

 

[Rizen]

Umm if you turn graphics settings down then that's exactly what consoles have always done, plus NVidia shield claims to play games at 4k.

4k is just a number lots of ways to get there, are you going to be able to max out BF4, probably not but its still better to have the output capabilities in a console generation that will start shipping at the same time 4k tvs start shipping in decent numbers. Say you want to run a slightly less graphically intense game at native resolution whats wrong with that?

The reality is the 1080p console generation never ever got to play their games in 1080p and maybe the 4k generation will never get to to play their games at 4k thanks to bad timing and cheap tactics.

If you consider that SONY was able to make a profit on the PS3 generation by the time all was said and done with the at the time very expensive blu ray why couldn't they add a little more money to this generation and make it a stand out feature.

Have you looked at Sony's financials recently? They just had to sell their US headquarters. They are in no position to take a $250 LOSS each sale of the PS4, like they could with the launch of the PS3.

 

[Mozex]

what in the world does that have to do with B.S. statement that you made earlier?


Absolutely nothing

It has absolutely nothing to do with the "B.S." part of my statement from earlier. I was just restating my point without the "B.S." to emphasize that the rest of my argument was still valid. I have omitted parts that you consider "B.S."

Here is my second post that explains that 360 and PS3 were hot and expensive to produce. I also state that in order to target 1080p the consumers would have had to wait a few years.

The fact remains that the 360 and ps3 were hot and {omitted} expensive to produce. If the consoles were to have hit a 1080p target they would have had to wait a few years.

And here is my original post with items you originally called out as BS redacted. Notice I also mention heat and expense and consumers waiting for 1080p hardware.

{intro removed} the only thing they could have done to target 1080P was make them bigger and hotter and more expensive with some SLI style solution OR wait quite a few years until hardware was ready. I'm glad they didn't wait.
{conclusion removed}

I'm not going to continue trying to convince you that the original PS3 and 360 are noisy - that's just something that does or doesn't bother some people. It doesn't worry me that you disagree with me, and it's not a key part of my argument.

 

[GuyClinch]

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.

More efficent yes - but not significantly more so. That's been the problem in the past with consoles. In theory the PS3 was quite fast - in reality the developers preferred the easy to program XBOX360 to the PS3.

For years now the hardware guys have been beating the software guys so to speak. So for the sake of argument let us imagine that the processor part is 100% more efficent and the graphics card aspect 50% more efficent.

How long will it take for a mid-range PC to surpass that? If we look to past history - not terribly long. You have to remember that writing to the metal and using something besides the industry standard DX11 is time consuming and slow. Developers aren't always going to do it - especially when the market base is very small.

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.

Even if that's true - the console makers have a hurdle. You don't "need' consoles - but you can use PCs for 'real work'. For alot of adult gamers this makes PCs the answer. Throw in the fact that the games on PCs are a whole lot cheaper (especially if you don't want to mess with optical disks) and you can see the wisdom behind something like steambox.

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.

Console exclusives are a tough way to run a business when your parent company is underwater. Developers want compensation for shrinking their market base. In the case of new console you are talking a miniscule market base. Why would you do that when your game is so easy to port.

Lets say you can make 40 bucks a sale on the console and 20 bucks on the PC. But imagine the installed base of a ps4 is 4 million customers. The installed base of PC gamers is around 200 million - even if we claim only 50 million have 'decent' systems that alot of potential money you are giving up. If you sold 5 million copies of your game on the PC - thats 100 million dollars. In short its going to take ALOT of money to make a game console exclusive.

 

[Stereophile]

I'm talking about first party exclusives, of which PS4 will have many. I think you're talking about 3rd party exclusives, which are a dying breed.

Although I wonder if GTA5 will be a timed exclusive on consoles ? Have they announced a PC release date yet?

 

[GuyClinch]

I get that you like exclusives. And I agree they are the reason to own a console. The problem for Sony is that they hope to do well just by executing 'better.' I am not sure its going to work - rather I think it won't.

They had a good first party lineup for the PS3 - and they lost money four years in a row..

 

[Rizen]

I get that you like exclusives. And I agree they are the reason to own a console. The problem for Sony is that they hope to do well just by executing 'better.' I am not sure its going to work - rather I think it won't.

They had a good first party lineup for the PS3 - and they lost money four years in a row..

They lost money because they took a $250 loss on the physical production of each and every console, not because of insufficient software.

 

[rudy]

That's not true, sony had a decent set of exclusives on the PS3 but far and away the XBOX 360 had more that people cared about, Halo was pretty much the biggest game at the time and then they had the whole issue of devs not wanting to program for the PS3 which either stopped or delayed various titles. Back then a lot of people used to argue, better hardware in the PS3 or better games in the XBOX 360. Times have changed and in recent years sony may have learned from their mistake and now tries to get more exclusives. But the $250 loss wasn't as big of a problem as the fact they just sold way less consoles for a while.

Doesn't matter if exclusives are first party or third most people don't care they care about if the game is popular or not. In fact most first party exclusives just means company X bought company Y to make them first party when we talk about companies that are not Nintendo.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

First off, I said "boxed in a console",

Secondly from your own link:

They tested a few games at max settings and 4K, none were playable. Sure, you could turn graphics options down, but either way you're talking a $1000 GPU that uses close to 300w. Not an option for a console.

no you said a 7990 could not do it and I proved you wrong. plain and simple.

quit trying to twist stuff it makes you look like a moron

your original quote for reference

There is no hardware capable of 4k at 30fps that they can box in a console.

A 7990 cannot run 4k resolution @ 30fps, and that costs more than twice what the PS4 will retail for. Given that the cheapest 4k set I have seen is $5000 for a 55 inch, and I can buy a 70 inch 1080 LCD TV for $1800, I don't see 4K getting much market penetration for years. Content is still way behind.

 

[Rizen]

no you said a 7990 could not do it and I proved you wrong. plain and simple.

quit trying to twist stuff it makes you look like a moron

your original quote for reference

I apologize, I misread the original review, which states that it can't do 30fps in Tomb Raider with TressFX on. The other games tested also could not run at 30fps (Crysis 3 ran at 20fps). Yes, you can turn off AA, other features, etc and get the frame rate up.

Regardless, this is a $1000 dollar board. The PS3 isn't even using a 7800-series GPU, let alone dual 7900 series GPU. It's not practical, period.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

I apologize, I misread the original review, which states that it can't do 30fps in Tomb Raider with TressFX on. The other games tested also could not run at 30fps (Crysis 3 ran at 20fps). Yes, you can turn off AA, other features, etc and get the frame rate up.

Regardless, this is a $1000 dollar board. The PS3 isn't even using a 7800-series GPU, let alone dual 7900 series GPU. It's not practical, period.

I'm sorry that you made yourself look foolish by making a blanket statement and then tried to come back and add conditions after you were told you were wrong.

nice try though

 

[HardUp4HardWare]

Some interesting info on developing on PS4

http://www.slashgear.com/killzone-s...o-shows-potency-of-next-gen-console-15282081/

 

[Rizen]

I'm sorry that you made yourself look foolish by making a blanket statement and then tried to come back and add conditions after you were told you were wrong.

nice try though

What is your point exactly? If you're talking about turning settings down then no shit, you could run 4K resolution on anything depending how low quality you want to go. They aren't going to get current level PC graphics at 4K on a console, period. That's not wrong. Stop being an ass.

 

[GuyClinch]

They lost money because they took a $250 loss on the physical production of each and every console, not because of insufficient software

That's not really fair. They thought they would make money on the consoles sold because in the past you could sell alot of software with each console. Thus you break even - especially over a multi-year period where the loss on each console goes down.

The problem is of course you cannot bank on each console be bundled with alot of games anymore. It's becoming a really tough industry to make a buck in..

Its been three 'high powered' consoles in a row that have had a hard time. They simple to program for Xbox360 - the tricky to program for PS3 and now the WiiU. I do like Sony's execution on the PS4. It seems good. But I am not sure the business model is that strong anymore..

Seems to me the social network world is dominating the interest of the casual gamer and the hardcore gamer is just going with the more powerful PCs.

 

[Rizen]

That's not really fair. They thought they would make money on the consoles sold because in the past you could sell alot of software with each console. Thus you break even - especially over a multi-year period where the loss on each console goes down.

The problem is of course you cannot bank on each console be bundled with alot of games anymore. It's becoming a really tough industry to make a buck in..

Its been three 'high powered' consoles in a row that have had a hard time. They simple to program for Xbox360 - the tricky to program for PS3 and now the WiiU. I do like Sony's execution on the PS4. It seems good. But I am not sure the business model is that strong anymore..

Seems to me the social network world is dominating the interest of the casual gamer and the hardcore gamer is just going with the more powerful PCs.

I'm pretty sure the amount of money lost on the sale of each PS3 was unprecedented. Yes, being a loss-leader in console sales is how most everyone has worked (sans Nintendo, who almost always makes a profit on their hardware) but Sony took a truly HUGE loss on the PS3. http://www.1up.com/news/sony-lost-ps3-ps2

 

[rudy]

It was the combination of everything not just 1 item.

didn't have enough exclusives and big hit games.
sold the console at a bigger loss to try to win the format war with BR
came late to the game by a year
came in with the most expensive console
had tons of people buy the console at the start only has a BR player because sony was ripping off partners who were trying to make stand alone BR players.
Didn't help push BR into computers also making the problem worse.
Netflix and streaming content exploded diminishing the interest in physical formats.


See the PS3 was only half about games and half about BR, but at the same time BR was about trying to sell games. In the end it would work out fine for them but it took longer then they thought. The PS4 should be all about games and help them stay more on track. Is it enough to overcome MS, maybe who knows. MS is highly disorganized too just like sony with a lot of fear about their core OS business and missing mobile. They could screw up any product like they did with windows 8 trying to break into mobile. The xbox might be the next item to see some sort of big compromise or feature that hurts it.

 

[Mr. Bluntman]

The 512MB were also shared.

Not on the PS3, it was a 256/256 split of XDR and GDDR3.

The RSX in the PS3 was a slightly modified 7800GTX core

More like neutered. Still an 8 vertex/24 pixel shader design, but half the ROPs, texture units, and about 60% of the memory bandwidth of its bigger brother on the desktop. Sony got sold a lemon in comparison to MS

 

[Stereophile]

Xenos was better, New paradigm with unified shaders, but its main UMA bus was only 128 bit like PS3, and its GPU was still weaker in raw power compared to R520/580. Chopped ROPs etc.

Nvidia botched the scaling, which is unforgivable, but otherwise RSX was okay for the earlier planned launch, but when PS3 got delayed and then G80 came out around the same time, it seemed especially outdated. But I don't think nvidia's unified shader tech was ready for the original PS3 launch date, or would have worked so well in a console, the original G80 architectures were large chips. AMD did a great job for MS on 360. Really happy Sony chose them for PS4.