Fake
Member
People joke on the Jaguar CPU, but for the time PS4 was an amazing machine.
Even so that devs started to create a game on PS4 and them port to others place.
DF: Hogwarts Legacy Switch 2 Preview: A Huge Leap Over Switch 1, But What About Series S And PS4
- Thread starter daclynk
- Start date
People joke on the Jaguar CPU, but for the time PS4 was an amazing machine.
Even so that devs started to create a game on PS4 and them port to others place.
kevboard
Member
was it tho? the year the PS4 released, AMD had a PC card as powerful as the PS4 Pro GPU... and PC CPUs were multiple times more powerful as well.
the PS4 benefited a lot from being the main platform devs targeted. there's a reason the entire 8th gen made PC players get used to being able to play everything at 120fps without issue. their PCs were so underutilised due to games being mainly designed for the PS4, that now that this isn't the case anymore, some are annoyed that they can't easily run everything at max settings and 120fps anymore lol
Fake
Member
Ryzen was expensive for the time PS4 release, would kill the momentum of PS4 vs Xbox price war.
And is not like PS4 doesn't have 60 fps games.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
No, the PS4 was a piece of shit the moment it came out. The PS5 was great for its time.
Solarstrike
Gold Member
If it runs better than the PS5 Pro version I'm in. PS5 Pro version is blasphemy with framerate hiccups and just a generally horrible experience.
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
let's be real tho, most of the things the Switch used from the Series S version, could have also been used in the One X version.
the One X is extremely neglected here, and is simply the One S version with a higher res, including the reduced settings compared to the PS4.
the One X could probably have managed to largely be identical to the Series S version, aside from the reduced loading zones maybe.
Fake
Member
Opinions dude. PS4 is a great machine, whatever you like or not.
NS also come to the market very outdated specs wise.
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
it still wasn't even close to cutting edge at the time. you could get a PC that was easily twice as powerful as the PS4 at a lower price than a mid range PC costs today.
sadly they were stuck with AMD essentially, as they were the only ones capable of making a decent APU, but being stuck with AMD meant they had to use the worst CPU architecture of the last 2 decades.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
It isn't an opinion. It's a POS tablet CPU paired with what was the equivalent of an HD Radeon 7850 from 2012-2013. Those consoles were considered weak and underpowered out of the gate with mid-range GPUs slapping them into oblivion from the moment they came out. Their one saving grace was their 8GB of VRAM. Couple that with the PS4's lumbering 5400 RPM HDDs over a USB 2.0 interface, and you had a bunch of slow-ass machines in every respect.
The PS4 was not a good machine for its time. It was crap, but at least, all it needed to do was 1080p/30 which was more than achievable even with its middling specs.
Last edited:
Fake
Member
It is. A console is not build just with CPU. PS4 GPU was decent, 8GDDR5 no other console did before and even an option for HDR later on.
Frankly, stop talking like was a fact. PS4 CPU was terrible, but the rest was decent. PS4 archieve many games in good case results.
IDK why I even talking to you, when both PS4 and PS5 launch to the market already pretty outdated, just like most of the consoles in general. Will always end up be the devs using the full potential of the console, not the specs. You main mistake is comparing consoles specs with PC.
Last edited:
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
No, it isn't. We're measuring quality and I'm comparing to what was out at there at the time and it was crap. Your sole argument is "No huh, it wasn't".
It's one of the two most crucial components.
Was equivalent to a mid-range 7850 from 2013 except with more RAM. Very meh.
It was the first 8th gen console. Why the hell would another console have done it before?
It is a fact. It was terrible. Slow CPU, slow HDD over a USB 2.0 interface. Middle of the road GPU if we're being generous. Loud. And the majority of games stuck at 30fps. That wasn't good in 2014, especially not when the PS2 had more 60fps games. The PS4 could often not even double the fps of PS3 games.
The PS5 was not outdated when it came out. Very solid CPU. GPU equivalent to an upper mid-tier NVIDIA card from the generation prior. Ray tracing support. Fast SSD. Hardware-accelerated decompression. Primitive/mesh shader support. You could blow the PS4 away with a cheap-ass PC the moment it came out. It took much longer for the PS5 because it had much better technology for its time.
Last edited:
LordOcidax
Member
Lol when i read some comments saying that AMD consoles are not outdated when comes out when AMD is almost 3 years behind Nvidia when it comes about tech, and in the same comment saying that the Switch 2 is old tech… 
Priceless.
Priceless.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Lol when i read some comments saying that AMD consoles are not outdated when comes out when AMD is almost 3 years behind Nvidia when it comes about tech, and in the same comment saying that the Switch 2 is old tech…
LordOcidax
Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Kataploom
Gold Member
Imo 8th gen graphical leap was saved by PBR, which came in the end of 7th gen and took a while for the studios to adopt, similar to RT these days, it allowed perfect materials creation to the point even traditional offline renderers adopted it.
But it was also possible in last gen machines, in fact, there were last gen games using PBR or PBS, it probably was a little harder to optimize tho due the tiny memory and the amount of textures it requires por material, but it was possible and if it wasn't commonplace before was because it was created right and the end of that gen, so when PS4 came out, devs were already starting to migrate from traditional rendering pipelines to PBR.
So if someone didn't have the idea of thinking differently about how to handle materials, PS4 games would probably look like it's first batch of games.
I played Titanfall 2 for first time recently and while it looks great, it looks like a clear evolution of 7th gen games instead of a generational leap, of course a PS3 couldn't have the same graphics but I can see a mid range PC running it easily. In fact, I ran it with a 1050 Ti which would be a mid range GPU when PS4 came out.
So yeah, 8th gen graphical leap was a matter of luck, at least for such a big leap after the second half in games like RDR2.
Last edited:
RodriGames40
Member
The console itself was a great mix of the then available technology, all it needed was an SSD and a CPU that wasn't dog shit.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Fake
Member
I don't think SSD was possible for the time (2013) with that price tag in mind.
Last edited:
Zannegan
Member
I'm hoping it gets prettied up a bit before launch (specifically that the resolution matches up with what WB PR was saying). BUT, if this is as good as it gets, I'm still pretty happy with the jump over Switch.
I missed out on HL during its heyday because I was waiting to jump into current gen (which, side bar, is looking less and less likely with consoles going UP in price, which was NOT on my bingo card). I considered the Switch version, but it looked a little too compromised. So, for my situation, a good enough port at the right price (sub $30 if you jumped on the sale price/upgrade) truly is good enough.
I missed out on HL during its heyday because I was waiting to jump into current gen (which, side bar, is looking less and less likely with consoles going UP in price, which was NOT on my bingo card). I considered the Switch version, but it looked a little too compromised. So, for my situation, a good enough port at the right price (sub $30 if you jumped on the sale price/upgrade) truly is good enough.