That's because it's a laptop.
Digital Foundry Tech Analysis: Watch Dogs on PlayStation 4
- Thread starter j0hnny_385
- Start date
That's because it's a laptop.
Darklor01
Might need to stop sniffing glue
OK, then, the PC I built in 2006 cannot run new games as my PS3 does without further investment.
Alright smarty pants Can a 2006 PC run 2013 AAA games?
RibbedHero
Member
Darklor01
Might need to stop sniffing glue
I wouldn't. That's the point I think someone was making. I think they were saying you can use a console to play AAA titles for 9 years or so without purchasing new hardware with a console, unlike PC, which would likely need an upgrade to do, increasing costs again.
You know, the ps4 is probably the best console you can build today with an approximately 500 dollar budget.
And dsps are great, and an asset (whether that's on console or PC).
But a jaguar is a jaguar. It's a mobile/net book type CPU. It's a good one, but it is still one. Sure there are 8 cores, but... It's per thread performance is a joke in comparison to intel's latest few. Per thread is important for gaming too. Unfortunately none of this generation's consoles has a focus on anything other than GPU, and even the wonders of GPU compute cant fix the defecit across the board on CPU grunt.
Darklor01
Might need to stop sniffing glue
Bottom line for me, if it continues to play the games I want to play, and the look/play well regardless of what a PC can do for 8+ years for $400, I'm happy.
bigace33
Member
lol
maplelord93
Banned
In the end games will be coded for 8 jaguar cores....
Meaning that the CPU powerful of gaming PCs will be underutilized. No point bringing it up.
Not really for 2013 games.
No they'll be coded for less than 8, but that wasn't my point. Your original unedited post about "higher frame rates" (lol) was also missing the point. Low per thread performance dictates what kind of game you can make.
If you had a high end 2006 PC, you could most certainly play many 2013 aaa games at low resolutions and frame rates at the lowest settings possible. But why would you want to?
Maybe not un-optimized trash like most Ubisoft games but other games? They will run perfectly fine on 2006 high end hardware.
LowEndTorque
Member
At $399, with a stable of 1st party studios that make some of the best exclusives in gaming and an online service that offers some of the best value in gaming, I doubt customer satisfaction will be an issue with the PS4. It's a $400 investment that will provide spectacular games and plenty of gaming enjoyment for many years to come.. The minor technical differences between PC and Console versions of mutliplats (which nobody gives a shit about except for a tiny vocal e-peen measuring minority) doesn't change that.
But thanks for your concern.
Why would they be coded for less than 8 considering that the Xbox One and PS4 both have 8, and will be the lead platform for most next gen games?
1st Course
Member
The problem is that both the 360 and the PS3 had CPUs that were way way much powerful than any PC CPU back in 2005/2006. Seriously just take a look at this steam hardware survey from 2006:
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey_v5.html
97% of Steam users back then had single core CPUs and only 10% had more than 1GB of system RAM. It wasn't until the 8800 GTX (late 2006) and Core 2 Quad CPUs (2007) that PCs were capable of outperforming current gen consoles.
I'm pretty sure that a 8800 GTX can still play modern games btw but CPUs by large was the biggest problem for PCs this gen.
This is such an annoying thread. PC master racers are using it as an excuse to espouse their superiority yet again, even though DF are making assumptions on an early build, and comparing it to a PC demo that may not even be representative of what the PC actually gets. So many moving parts and uncertainties yet somehow those that want to can pull 'fact' out of it to support their argument.
Sigh.
Sigh.
My old computer with a ATI Radeon X800XL gpu (Which was $300-$350 at the time of release, high end) was used to try to play Tomb Raider when I didn't have room to download it on my hard drive. It played at minimum settings at 14-16 fps, which was unplayable.
maplelord93
Banned
just to clarify, pci-e is not a bottleneck for any existing workloads. hsa is a neat idea from amd and it has some interesting future possibilities but right now nothing takes advantage of it and the current x86 pc architecture has more than enough bandwidth to handle everything being done today.
whether hsa really takes off or not is up in the air, and how much a low-latency connection between cpu and gpu actually matters is similarly in limbo. right now pure gigaflops is a much more useful benchmark.
not_so_special
Banned
with a 1000 card? better will be the superior version
hemtae
Member
Do you really think the PS4 version will outclass the PC version running on a high end PC? Because it won't and I don't really see what is so controversial about that.
Isn't that GPU from 2005, going by memory here.
Of course PC is going to look better. Current PC GPUs, which are from a 2011 design, are 2x faster than PS4's GPU. In 6 short months, just after PS4's release, we should expect AMD's Radeon HD 9000 series. In another 6 month's Nvidia's Maxwell. They should be nearly 4x faster than PS4's GPU.
do you always read things in the way which guarantees you getting the most enraged indignation of it?
it must make life pretty difficult.
not_so_special
Banned
anyway this game is uplay only on pc?
It's not superiority, it's just a feature of PC games that you can opt into. Getting frustrated over this is like getting frustrated over people that own Ferraris. Personally I don't care for automobile performance that much, but it doesn't mean I cannot value something inbetween. And there are other things than raw performance that consoles have going for them.
I don't know and don't care, I just think DF didn't do a good job in their article and it is disappointing to see people jump on the (poor) outcome to backup their clearly already defined positions as to PC Vs console.
I *do* think that Ps4 should be capable of producing games that outclass what is currently produced on today's high end PCs (eg i5/680). But that would be a first party team with resources and time that PC dev teams don't have access to, and needing a few years to get to grips with what can be done when fully utilised, and also reflects that most PC games are held back by current console limitations.
And of course upcoming and future GPUs will let the PC pull away again relatively quickly.
current workloads are designed around current designs, yes. it doesn't mean there's necessarily any practical benefit that can be derived from a different design.
intel got into gpu design because they had a lot of die size left over on their northbridge chips back in the 90s, they had to have something to fill the space and thus made some shitty gpus. competition from amd and arm vendors has forced them to step up or get left behind because it's cheaper for oems to buy one chip that does everything.
project denver is nvidia's desktop arm cpu design, it'll probably have a built in gpu but that doesn't really have anything to do with this.
microsoft and sony chose amd for the xb1 and ps4 because they're got a proven design that's being sold for an incredibly low price since amd is barely hanging on.
none of what you just said has anything to do with the advantage of hsa computing. it's entirely possible that someone will come up with a use case that benefits massively from moving workloads between the cpu and gpu quickly but it hasn't happened yet.
any core i7 from bloomfield onwards is easily double the multithreaded performance of 8 jaguar cores at 1.6ghz
maplelord93
Banned
Your CPU has more than double the performance of the ones in the PS4 and Xbone.
It will still be underutilized.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
i don't really understand what he was getting at, but it's obviously a troll/astroturf/extreme fanboy account so whatever
Green Yoshi
Member
maplelord93
Banned
And it doesn't need to be for the PS4's purposes.
nelsonroyale
Member
It is a very poor anology though. A ferrari doesn't need a special type of fuel. Sure you can have a monster PC, but you need games to run. No games on the market exclusively target even a 680 to squeeze out the most juice. I am willing to bet nothing much will tax a top end Maxwell when it comes out, barring terrible optimization. In fact, I am not seeing any pc exclusives on the horizon that will push any of the upcoming cards. PC versions will be better and run smoother, but I don't think any games will take full advantage of the power differences, because the market isn't there.
-120Hz
-Eyefinity/Surround
-3D
-Oculus rift
-Downsampling
Our pc's will be fully utilized.
but to a lot of us the better performance for games targeted at console specs is enough of a reason to buy on pc since console audiences have clearly decided that games running at sub-hd resolutions with low framerates and poor iq are completely acceptable
not_so_special
Banned
he got some valid points..i dont get why u use the trolling card
u have three titans on sli? its that right¿
Green Yoshi
Member
That's a developer's call.
BradleyLove
Member
... and the same old PC faces shitting up yet another PS4 thread.
The constant self-reassurance is beyond tiring. I wonder if console fans go into PC-specific threads and constantly shit those up...
The constant self-reassurance is beyond tiring. I wonder if console fans go into PC-specific threads and constantly shit those up...
They do.