How powerful was the ps3 when it came out

[sqwidee]

When it came out it seemed pretty killer, but compared to PCs it didn't age too well at all. Only the more polished games still look good (Ratchet & Clank Future comes to mind)...

[xiaolongstan]

They fixed it with the slim model, I think you can still run linux on the phat models. 

The Slim was released after the patch that removed OtherOS, so you can't downgrade, you can't use PSN and run Linux on the same console, even with a phat model.

[threadysparrow]

The PS3's CPU is more powerful than the PS4's CPU.

[GeathX]

The PS3's CPU is more powerful than the PS4's CPU.

 

True, though they were designed for different ends. The Cell has a lot of power specialized for compute like functions but weaker in the sense of a regular CPU. Take away those parts from the Cell and the CPU in the ps4 is much more useful in the traditional sense. 

[TheArium]

Maybe this will give you some idea.

 

Note the price difference though. A GTX Titan alone costs way more than a Xbox One or a PS4.

[threadysparrow]

True, though they were designed for different ends. The Cell has a lot of power specialized for compute like functions but weaker in the sense of a regular CPU. Take away those parts from the Cell and the CPU in the ps4 is much more useful in the traditional sense. 

Like this: http://phys.org/news/2010-12-air-playstation-3s-supercomputer.html

[GeathX]

Like this: http://phys.org/news/2010-12-air-playstation-3s-supercomputer.html

Exactly, This too...

 

That is an example of the graphical power of the Cell, real time ray tracing. No i7 is able to do that at interactive speeds to that quality. But then there are things the i7 could smash the Cell with

[NeatSquidYT]

They fixed it with the slim model, I think you can still run linux on the phat models.

I don't think you can, I thought they patched it due to the hacks etc.

[Yasri]

The GPU in the Playstation 3 was a heavy modified G70 from Nvidia with performance a bit below that of a 7800GS.

That picture is severally low balling the difference between a 780/titan and PS4/X1. 300% faster is generous, probably more closer to 5x or 6x faster. My 750ti($150) can run games at 1080p60 if I leave AA/AO off, something neither the PS4 nor X1 can do. And that is in a system with a sandy i3. Lot of people are now playing at 2560x1440 or higher on PC with single cards, that would crush the PS4/X1 into dust, with fps most likely in single digits..

[skywake]

Note the price difference though. A GTX Titan alone costs way more than a Xbox One or a PS4.

and? That's not the point. Let me put it this way and compare using Australian dates/prices (because I'm Australian and that's easier for me) and the numbers on that graph.

 

Last generation early on:

- 360 at launch in March 2006 is $500AU

- best performing graphics card at the time was about on par but cost $790AU just for the card

- PS3 at launch in March 2007, was about on-par with the 360, cost $700AU and was also a Blu-Ray player

 

This generation of consoles early on:

- XBOne costs $500AU, $600AU with Kinect. PS4 costs $550AU

- Titan? Well ok. But the 780Ti is pretty much equivalent for gaming and costs ~$850AU

- Equivalent card? Well the R9 260x is about on-par with PS4/XBOne and costs ~$170AU

 

So basically at the start of last gen if you wanted to have a "360 equivalent" PC you'd break the bank. Especially given that at the time CPU performance was a much, much bigger bottleneck. More again if you looked at the $700AU PS3 as a Blu-Ray player because at the time a stand-alone Blu-Ray player cost more than that. The things were expensive sure but they were easily half the price of getting the "same thing" via another route.

 

As of right now if you wanted to build a PC that was "PS4 equivalent" you could do it from scratch for about the same price. Or if you already have a PC that's only a few years old then you should be able to spend a fraction of that because all you'll probably need is the $170AU GPU. Ontop of that for just a fraction more if you want you could get *better* performance. If you have a PC that's a few years old with an ok CPU then the $500 you would spend on a console could instead buy you an R9 290 or GTX770. All this debate about these new consoles running at 1080p, 60fps or aiming lower but with higher detail? If you had a 770 you can have both. That sort of option simply didn't exist at the start of last-gen.

 

It really is night and day. If you don't think it is then go back and look at what you could get for the cost of a 360 when it launched and what PS4 money gets you now. If you still think PC gaming is as far behind in terms of value now as it was then? Well I don't know what else to say.

[Castdeath97]

and? That's not the point. Let me put it this way and compare using Australian dates/prices (because I'm Australian and that's easier for me) and the numbers on that graph.

 

Last generation early on:

- 360 at launch in March 2006 is $500AU

- best performing graphics card at the time was about on par but cost $790AU just for the card

- PS3 at launch in March 2007, was about on-par with the 360, cost $700AU and was also a Blu-Ray player

 

This generation of consoles early on:

- XBOne costs $500AU, $600AU with Kinect. PS4 costs $550AU

- Titan? Well ok. But the 780Ti is pretty much equivalent for gaming and costs ~$850AU

- Equivalent card? Well the R9 260x is about on-par with PS4/XBOne and costs ~$170AU

 

So basically at the start of last gen if you wanted to have a "360 equivalent" PC you'd break the bank. Especially given that at the time CPU performance was a much, much bigger bottleneck. More again if you looked at the $700AU PS4 as a Blu-Ray player because at the time a stand-alone Blu-Ray player cost more than that. The things were expensive sure but they were easily half the price of getting the "same thing" via another route.

 

As of right now if you wanted to build a PC that was "PS4 equivalent" you could do it from scratch for about the same price. Or if you already have a PC that's only a few years old then you should be able to spend a fraction of that because all you'll probably need is the $170AU GPU. Ontop of that for just a fraction more if you want you could get *better* performance. If you have a PC that's a few years old with an ok CPU then the $500 you would spend on a console could instead buy you an R9 290 or GTX770. All this debate about these new consoles running at 1080p, 60fps or aiming lower but with higher detail? If you had a 770 you can have both. That sort of option simply didn't exist at the start of last-gen.

 

It really is night and day. If you don't think it is then go back and look at what you could get for the cost of a 360 when it launched and what PS4 money gets you now. If you still think PC gaming is as far behind in terms of value now as it was then? Well I don't know what else to say.

And that's without considering markups in the prices of games, heck eventually a PS4 would become pricer than a 1300 Dollar build because of that. 

[GeathX]

 

So basically at the start of last gen if you wanted to have a "360 equivalent" PC you'd break the bank. Especially given that at the time CPU performance was a much, much bigger bottleneck. More again if you looked at the $700AU PS4 as a Blu-Ray player because at the time a stand-alone Blu-Ray player cost more than that. The things were expensive sure but they were easily half the price of getting the "same thing" via another route.

 

I'd also like to add if that "360 equivalent" would have had as long legs as the 360/PS3 has? Would a pc with high end 05/06 parts be able to run some of the multiplatform games that have come out in the last year with zero upgrades? BF4, Blackflag, Ghost, Watchdogs, titanfall are in a way running on hardware dating back that far. Granted the 360/PS3 versions aren't running at 1080p....some not even 720p, but they are still running in a form that is playable for many.

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/pc-buyers-guide-christmas-2005,3.html

 

Using that as an example of a high end machine, having only 2GB of ram would stop it from running quite a few games these days.

 

 

That picture is severally low balling the difference between a 780/titan and PS4/X1. 300% faster is generous, probably more closer to 5x or 6x faster. My 750ti($150) can run games at 1080p60 if I leave AA/AO off, something neither the PS4 nor X1 can do. And that is in a system with a sandy i3. Lot of people are now playing at 2560x1440 or higher on PC with single cards, that would crush the PS4/X1 into dust, with fps most likely in single digits..

 

 Well, if we go by GFLOPS as a mesurement of GPU/system power, the 780ti is about 2.7x more powerful than a PS4. 5046 to 1843. Memory bandwidth, 336 vs 176 GB/s, almost 2x there. Only area that it completely crushes the PS4 is in texture fill rates. If your going to talk about specs, its best to actually go look at the numbers rather than just believe something is how you think.

[TheArium]

and? That's not the point. Let me put it this way and compare using Australian dates/prices (because I'm Australian and that's easier for me) and the numbers on that graph.

 

Last generation early on:

- 360 at launch in March 2006 is $500AU

- best performing graphics card at the time was about on par but cost $790AU just for the card

- PS3 at launch in March 2007, was about on-par with the 360, cost $700AU and was also a Blu-Ray player

 

This generation of consoles early on:

- XBOne costs $500AU, $600AU with Kinect. PS4 costs $550AU

- Titan? Well ok. But the 780Ti is pretty much equivalent for gaming and costs ~$850AU

- Equivalent card? Well the R9 260x is about on-par with PS4/XBOne and costs ~$170AU

 

So basically at the start of last gen if you wanted to have a "360 equivalent" PC you'd break the bank. Especially given that at the time CPU performance was a much, much bigger bottleneck. More again if you looked at the $700AU PS3 as a Blu-Ray player because at the time a stand-alone Blu-Ray player cost more than that. The things were expensive sure but they were easily half the price of getting the "same thing" via another route.

 

As of right now if you wanted to build a PC that was "PS4 equivalent" you could do it from scratch for about the same price. Or if you already have a PC that's only a few years old then you should be able to spend a fraction of that because all you'll probably need is the $170AU GPU. Ontop of that for just a fraction more if you want you could get *better* performance. If you have a PC that's a few years old with an ok CPU then the $500 you would spend on a console could instead buy you an R9 290 or GTX770. All this debate about these new consoles running at 1080p, 60fps or aiming lower but with higher detail? If you had a 770 you can have both. That sort of option simply didn't exist at the start of last-gen.

 

It really is night and day. If you don't think it is then go back and look at what you could get for the cost of a 360 when it launched and what PS4 money gets you now. If you still think PC gaming is as far behind in terms of value now as it was then? Well I don't know what else to say.

 

You make a valid point and I agree with you. The technology has evolved to the point were the new consoles do not represent the latest and most powerful technology and that aspect could be far better. I wonder why both Sony and Microsoft made that choice, any guesses? PC's and consoles have become two very different lines of product and there is no doubt the PC in many aspects is the more advanced (in terms of technology) and more powerful choice.

 

One thing I do not agree with, though, is the claim that you could get the same experience from a 170$ (AU, USD, CAD; let's just go with $ for the sake of it right now - my home currency is neither anyway). It is true that in terms of numbers, tests have shown a 170$ card to be equivalent of the power of the new consoles, but I would, without anything empirical to substantiate my statement, say that the gaming experience on a console is better than on a PC with a 170$ graphics card. Why? Due to unparalleled optimization on the consoles. The PC's cannot compete here even though progress is being made with initiatives such as AMD Mantle.

 

And that is why I think that the majority of techies are being unfair to the consoles; because there is a market and a consumer base out there for them. It is people who either and/or:

 

a) do not have the know-how to build a gaming pc, don't have the patience or don't want to pay someone to do it for an increased total price,

b ) cannot afford a gaming pc because a similar experience will cost you more today, although the price gap will diminish quicker than with the last gen due to the relatively lower performance of the new consoles,

c) prioritize convenience and perhaps as a  extension thereof do not care about graphics quality (which doesn't suffer today expect the lower resolution and hopefully won't suffer for quite some time due to the aforementioned optimization).

 

I am even prone to agree that to many users "resolution is just a number", which Linus and Slick got a great deal of fun out of. On my 24" TV a couple of feet away it wouldn't make a world of difference anyway, and many consumers don't even know what it means, not to mention that they would hardly be able to tell the difference if you showed it to them. But you and me, we know, we care, we can tell. And that's is all fine.

 

Consoles are easy on money and time and everyone can use them. Many people can break a PC without even knowing what they did wrong. It won't happen on a console and they will no matter what the techies say get a very pleasing and nice gaming experience.

[skywake]

You make a valid point and I agree with you. The technology has evolved to the point were the new consoles do not represent the latest and most powerful technology and that aspect could be far better. I wonder why both Sony and Microsoft made that choice, any guesses? PC's and consoles have become two very different lines of product and there is no doubt the PC in many aspects is the more advanced (in terms of technology) and more powerful choice.

 

One thing I do not agree with, though, is the claim that you could get the same experience from a 170$ (AU, USD, CAD; let's just go with $ for the sake of it right now - my home currency is neither anyway). It is true that in terms of numbers, tests have shown a 170$ card to be equivalent of the power of the new consoles, but I would, without anything empirical to substantiate my statement, say that the gaming experience on a console is better than on a PC with a 170$ graphics card. Why? Due to unparalleled optimization on the consoles. The PC's cannot compete here even though progress is being made with initiatives such as AMD Mantle.

 

And that is why I think that the majority of techies are being unfair to the consoles; because there is a market and a consumer base out there for them. It is people who either and/or

a) do not have the know-how to build a gaming pc,

b ) cannot afford a gaming pc because a similar experience will cost you more today, although the price gap will diminish quicker than with the last gen due to the relatively lower performance of the new consoles,

c) prioritize convenience and perhaps as a  extension thereof do not care about graphics quality

Why did they do it? I'll give three reasons: Profit margin, market-share, TV resolutions. They were aggressive at the start of the previous generation because they were trying to carve out a market/fanbase. This time around they've already established themselves as players and so they don't need to be as aggressive. By not being as aggressive they can make a profit quicker. Plus you've got to remember that back when the previous generation started we were moving from tiny 480p TVs to large 720p/1080p TVs which was a stretch. This generation everyone has 1080p, we're staying with 1080p for a bit, 1080p gaming isn't that much of a stretch especially if you have gamers who are "happy" with 30fps.

 

As for your list of points well.

a) If someone can't build a gaming PC well then they could get someone to build them a machine so that's not that hard. People won't do this because they "want a console" but they can do it.

b ) This is true and will always be true because of economies of scale but it's A LOT less true than it was last-gen. To the point where if you're happy to spend a tiny bit more and even DIY it's not true at all.

c) Install Steam, boot into big-picture mode, plug into TV. And they don't care about graphics quality at all? Then why did they get a PS4 and not a 360?

 

For the quick rebuttal I think it's pretty simple. Last gen consoles were a better value proposition than getting a gaming PC early on. With this new generation entry level gaming PCs and the shiny new consoles are about on par in terms of value. Not only that but PC gaming has become A LOT easier. As time goes on PC gaming will stay at the same sort of value as the new consoles start to fade. I don't mean to say that console gaming is a horrible idea or that they're useless because they're underpowered. I own a Wii U FFS. I'm just saying that in terms of raw $ for shiny PC gaming is where you'll get the best deal. If you're after multi-platforms and you know your stuffs? In 2006 you would have got a 360, in 2014 you should get a PC.

 

I'd also like to add if that "360 equivalent" would have had as long legs as the 360/PS3 has? Would a pc with high end 05/06 parts be able to run some of the multiplatform games that have come out in the last year with zero upgrades? BF4, Blackflag, Ghost, Watchdogs, titanfall are in a way running on hardware dating back that far. Granted the 360/PS3 versions aren't running at 1080p....some not even 720p, but they are still running in a form that is playable for many.

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/pc-buyers-guide-christmas-2005,3.html

 

Using that as an example of a high end machine, having only 2GB of ram would stop it from running quite a few games these days.

I wasn't trying to argue that the 360/PS3 were "bad value" when they launched compared with the PCs of the time. Quite the opposite. I was saying that they were extremely good value and by comparison the PS4/XBOne look a bit average. Plus you've got to remember that the last console generation was the generation where we went the longest without any real hardware upgrades. The generation before last "started" in 1998 but we got new consoles upto ~2002 before the "next generation" started in 2005. Last gen started in 2005, got new machines in 2006 and then stayed that way for a good 7 years.

 

To put it another way. In terms of "time between hardware" having Watch Dogs run on a 360 is almost like us wanting to see Gears of War run on an N64

[TheArium]

Why did they do it? I'll give three reasons: Profit margin, market-share, TV resolutions. They were aggressive at the start of the previous generation because they were trying to carve out a market/fanbase. This time around they've already established themselves as players and so they don't need to be as aggressive. By not being as aggressive they can make a profit quicker. Plus you've got to remember that back when the previous generation started we were moving from tiny 480p TVs to large 720p/1080p TVs which was a stretch. This generation everyone has 1080p, we're staying with 1080p for a bit, 1080p gaming isn't that much of a stretch especially if you have gamers who are "happy" with 30fps.

 

As for your list of points well.

a) If someone can't build a gaming PC well then they could get someone to build them a machine so that's not that hard. People won't do this because they "want a console" but they can do it.

b ) This is true and will always be true because of economies of scale but it's A LOT less true than it was last-gen. To the point where if you're happy to spend a tiny bit more and even DIY it's not true at all.

c) Install Steam, boot into big-picture mode, plug into TV. And they don't care about graphics quality at all? Then why did they get a PS4 and not a 360?

 

For the quick rebuttal I think it's pretty simple. Last gen consoles were a better value proposition than getting a gaming PC early on. With this new generation entry level gaming PCs and the shiny new consoles are about on par in terms of value. Not only that but PC gaming has become A LOT easier. As time goes on PC gaming will stay at the same sort of value as the new consoles become less and less so. I don't mean to say that console gaming is a horrible idea or that they're useless because they're underpowered. I own a Wii U FFS. I'm just saying that in terms of raw $ for shiny PC gaming is where you'll get the best deal. If you're after multi-platforms and you know your stuffs? In 2006 you would have got a 360, in 2014 you should get a PC.

 

To put it another way. In terms of "time between hardware" having Watch Dogs run on a 360 is almost like us wanting to see Gears of War run on an N64

 

a) It's an extra expense. Not necessarily a huge one but it all adds up.

b ) Exactly my point, but true none the less.

c) I'm not sure I follow unless you could boot to Steam Big Picture. Steam OS will allow this, though. Well, people tend to prefer new tech.   Different experience and there will be games not available to the old consoles.

 

I agree with your point about value expect I would like to point out the console optimization again. You will need a more expensive PC to get the same experience as on the console.

 

I will hold on to the argument that consoles are the convenient choice. Whether it be because you don't know how to build yourself, can't afford it, don't want to, don't care because you just want the simple idiot proof solution you are sure will work, consoles can be a great choice. As I said, there is a market for them. They sell in the millions after all and not because people are stupid but because the techies make out a minority and people purchase the product which makes most sense to them.

[skywake]

a) It's an extra expense. Not necessarily a huge one but it all adds up.

b ) Exactly my point, but true none the less.

c) I'm not sure I follow unless you could boot to Steam Big Picture. Steam OS will allow this, though. Well, people tend to prefer new tech.   Different experience and there will be games not available to the old consoles.

 

I agree with your point about value expect I would like to point out the console optimization again. You will need a more expensive PC to get the same experience as on the console.

 

I will hold on to the argument that consoles are the convenient choice. Whether it be because you don't know how to build yourself, can't afford it, don't want to, don't care because you just want the simple idiot proof solution you are sure will work, consoles can be a great choice. As I said, there is a market for them. They sell in the millions after all and not because people are stupid but because the techies make out a minority and people purchase the product which makes most sense to them.

I think we're arguing different things here and have gone very far away from the bit you said originally that I disagreed with. Again to repeat, I wasn't saying that there is no place for consoles I was just saying that in terms of a raw $ for shiny they don't represent the sort of value that they once did. If you want to argue that consoles are a "simpler" product then that's fine but that wasn't the original argument. At the start of last gen you got that as well as a crazy value for money, this gen you're getting the console convenience "for free" and little else. Of course people buy them and people like consoles for a number of reasons. That doesn't necessarily make them the best value option though especially if you need a PC for other stuffs anyway.

 

As for the other bits. Well for starters there is an option in steam to start steam when your machine boots and there is a second option to start steam in Big Picture mode. That's a thing. So if you set it up right with a couple of clicks you can have a PC "behave like a console". People like new tech? Well sure, and your point is? Surely if people are happy going for a PS4 for "the new tech" then they'd be equally as happy with "the new tech" of a more powerful GPU. As for optimisation, well, I said R7 260x yeah?.....

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-r7-260x-vs-next-gen-console

[TheArium]

I think we're arguing different things here and have gone very far away from the bit you said originally that I disagreed with. Again to repeat, I wasn't saying that there is no place for consoles I was just saying that in terms of a raw $ for shiny they don't represent the sort of value that they once did. If you want to argue that consoles are a "simpler" product then that's fine but that wasn't the original argument. At the start of last gen you got that as well as a crazy value for money, this gen you're getting the console convenience "for free" and little else. Of course people buy them and people like consoles for a number of reasons. That doesn't necessarily make them the best value option though especially if you need a PC for other stuffs anyway.

 

As for the other bits. Well for starters there is an option in steam to start steam when your machine boots and there is a second option to start steam in Big Picture mode. That's a thing. So if you set it up right with a couple of clicks you can have a PC "behave like a console". People like new tech? Well sure, and your point is? Surely if people are happy going for a PS4 for "the new tech" then they'd be equally as happy with "the new tech" of a more powerful GPU. As for optimisation, well, I said R7 260x yeah?.....

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-r7-260x-vs-next-gen-console

 

My point about new tech  is that people see a new complete product launched and they join in on the hype. A graphics card is a part of a larger puzzle that you have to assemble, and PC hardware in general are definitely not mainstream products. We have to face the truth that you and I and everyone on this and similar forums are part of a relatively tech savvy minority.

 

Generally, I think we pretty much agree on this console / pc / performance / hardware debate. 

[skywake]

My point about new tech  is that people see a new complete product launched and they join in on the hype. A graphics card is a part of a larger puzzle that you have to assemble, and PC hardware in general are definitely not mainstream products. We have to face the truth that you and I and everyone on this and similar forums are part of a relatively tech savvy minority.

 

Generally, I think we pretty much agree on this console / pc / performance / hardware debate. 

Building your own gaming PC? Yeah, not as mainstream as buying a console. That's not the point though. PC gaming itself is pretty mainstream. When you look at the raw numbers last year ~300mill new Desktop PCs were sold globally and looking at VGChartz ~27mill non-portable consoles sold. Yes a lot of those PCs would be in offices and schools while all of those consoles will be playing games under a TV. Still, it's a 10x difference.

 

Also when you look at Steam's stats they have 75million active users compared to a total of ~20mill current gen consoles sold and ~166mill 360/PS3s sold. It's probably very, very close to 50:50. The hardware stats are hard to break down by "level of power" but if you go down the line the most popular cards are ~550Ti and up. So "serious" PC gaming is pretty mainstream. All you need to do is grab those people running integrated graphics and plonk a ~$200 card in their machine. Who cares about the console hype, you've got that card? Now you've got better shinies than you would have on a console.

 

You buy consoles for their exclusives. They're not good value for most people because most people who are into gaming *are* savvy enough.

[GeathX]

 

I wasn't trying to argue that the 360/PS3 were "bad value" when they launched compared with the PCs of the time. Quite the opposite. I was saying that they were extremely good value and by comparison the PS4/XBOne look a bit average. Plus you've got to remember that the last console generation was the generation where we went the longest without any real hardware upgrades. The generation before last "started" in 1998 but we got new consoles upto ~2002 before the "next generation" started in 2005. Last gen started in 2005, got new machines in 2006 and then stayed that way for a good 7 years.

 

To put it another way. In terms of "time between hardware" having Watch Dogs run on a 360 is almost like us wanting to see Gears of War run on an N64

 

I suppose I wasn't really trying to argue that point either, more just noting that a PC that is mid-high end at the start of any generation isn't going to be able to handle what 'example console' could do by the time of the next gen. Going by dates does mess with the cycles a bit, the quick turn around of Xbox to 360 compresses comparisons. But surely you mean Gears of War running on a Gamcube? N64 would be 2 gens back from when GoW launched. And what are you counting as start of the next gen? Because if its new consoles like you said, we would need to include the WiiU, which would bring the 7 years back to 6.

 

Hmm, maybe because the PS3/360 did push the envelope spec wise they were able to stretch out that extra year.

[TheArium]

Building your own gaming PC? Yeah, not as mainstream as buying a console. That's not the point though. PC gaming itself is pretty mainstream. When you look at the raw numbers last year ~300mill new Desktop PCs were sold globally and looking at VGChartz ~27mill non-portable consoles sold. Yes a lot of those PCs would be in offices and schools while all of those consoles will be playing games under a TV. Still, it's a 10x difference.

 

Also when you look at Steam's stats they have 75million active users compared to a total of ~20mill current gen consoles sold and ~166mill 360/PS3s sold. It's probably very, very close to 50:50. The hardware stats are hard to break down by "level of power" but if you go down the line the most popular cards are ~550Ti and up. So "serious" PC gaming is pretty mainstream. All you need to do is grab those people running integrated graphics and plonk a ~$200 card in their machine. Who cares about the console hype, you've got that card? Now you've got better shinies than you would have on a console.

 

You buy consoles for their exclusives. They're not good value for most people because most people who are into gaming *are* savvy enough.

 

Unless you can break those numbers down into PC's sold for offices, for schools and for private homes with the intend of gaming I don't think they add much to the discussion other than a base for guessing.

 

I'm not saying tech savvy people are rare - they are not. It seems to me that the only thing we really disagree on is how convenient consoles are compared to PC's. When I was 14 I knew little about computers and I had no idea how to build one. But I liked gaming. My parents aren't tech experts either and my little brother for sure couldn't add anything tech savvy at that time. So what does a family like that do? Do they go to a PC store and trust a salesman's word that they are getting a good deal, hoping they will not run into trouble? Or do they get a console, plug it in and play? As I said you cannot break a console unless you use a hammer, but you can break a PC with the mouse. PC's can be fragile machines. All I'm saying is the console is the convenient, idiot proof choice where nothing can go wrong, You don't have to worry about what hardware you get, you don't have to worry about perhaps having to upgrade in the future, you don't have to worry if your game will run, you don't have to worry about virus, you don't have to worry about it slowing down over time due to crap you install.

 

Everything will be build custom for that machine and everything launched will run (albeit as the years goes by the graphics will no longer improve). Worry free experience you plug into your tv and play.

 

Why would a person like you and I buy a console, then? As you said: exclusives. I'm personally a huge Halo fan.

 

On a site note, do you know if anyone has calculated or estimated how powerful the PS4 and Xbox One really are when you factor in the optimization?

[skywake]

I suppose I wasn't really trying to argue that point either, more just noting that a PC that is mid-high end at the start of any generation isn't going to be able to handle what 'example console' could do by the time of the next gen. Going by dates does mess with the cycles a bit, the quick turn around of Xbox to 360 compresses comparisons. But surely you mean Gears of War running on a Gamcube? N64 would be 2 gens back from when GoW launched. And what are you counting as start of the next gen? Because if its new consoles like you said, we would need to include the WiiU, which would bring the 7 years back to 6.

Watch Dogs is a 2013/14 game that was built with new hardware in mind but was running on hardware that came out in 2005/06. Effectively Watch Dogs when it came out was a modern game running on 8 year old hardware. Gears of War was a 2006 game which means that if it was running on "8 year old hardware" it would have been running on a 1998 machine. Yes, the N64 came out in 1996 but it's not that far off and I was exaggerating just a tiny bit for emphasis. Plus in defence of that point 1998 is closer to 1996 than it is to 2001

 

So bugger it, I stand by the statement. Having Watch Dogs run on a 360 is almost like getting Gears of War to run on an N64

[bry.yyyy]

PS3 Is powerful as PS4 When it launch cause past PS3 Is Next Gen Console

[skywake]

1. Unless you can break those numbers down into PC's sold for offices, for schools and for private homes with the intend of gaming I don't think they add much to the discussion other than a base for guessing.

 

2. [....] So what does a family like that do? Do they go to a PC store and trust a salesman's word that they are getting a good deal, hoping they will not run into trouble? Or do they get a console, plug it in and play? [...]

 

3. Why would a person like you and I buy a console, then? As you said: exclusives. I'm personally a huge Halo fan.

 

4. On a site note, do you know if anyone has calculated or estimated how powerful the PS4 and Xbox One really are when you factor in the optimization?

 

1. I also included Steam stats. There are 75million active steam users. It's not a trivial amount, it basically puts PC gaming at ~50% of the "core" gamer market

2. Well, yeah. It's not that hard. I mean you *can* be had and there *are* bad deals. However the entry level gaming PC at one of my local PC shops is more-or-less what I'd build myself for that person

3. Well yes, exclusives. I never said that exclusive content is not a good reason to get one. I just said it's not as good a value for multi-platform titles like Assassin's Creed or CoD. Again, I own a Wii U

4. The R7 260x, at 1/3rd the cost of the new consoles, matched them for visuals/framerate in all games except CoD in that link I posted. Same thing for the 360 at launch would have been ~2x the cost

[Thuster]

It was amazing i bought the first day ahah

[GeathX]

Watch Dogs is a 2013/14 game that was built with new hardware in mind but was running on hardware that came out in 2005/06. Effectively Watch Dogs when it came out was a modern game running on 8 year old hardware. Gears of War was a 2006 game which means that if it was running on "8 year old hardware" it would have been running on a 1998 machine. Yes, the N64 came out in 1996 but it's not that far off and I was exaggerating just a tiny bit for emphasis. Plus in defence of that point 1998 is closer to 1996 than it is to 2001

 

So bugger it, I stand by the statement. Having Watch Dogs run on a 360 is almost like getting Gears of War to run on an N64

 

How about we just say dreamcast then?

Cause even that is a crazy concept to think about

 

 

4. The R7 260x, at 1/3rd the cost of the new consoles, matched them for visuals/framerate in all games except CoD in that link I posted. Same thing for the 360 at launch would have been ~2x the cost

 

Might be worth giving this a bit of a read...

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-metro-redux-what-its-really-like-to-make-a-multi-platform-game

 

They go into some great detail on comparing console hardware to PCs, there are also some nice details on how current consoles are helping PC.

 

Main points though...

 

-DX12 is going to be big for PC (X1 as well to an extent)

-Mantle is kind of a stop gap/transition API

-DX11 is holding back X1 quite bad it seems

-Still huge gains to be made performance wise

- About 2x performance gain in consoles compared to similar spec PC

 

Also not the first guys to have said that either. John Carmack said the same thing last year to. And again by what we have seen being pulled out of the 360/PS3 with current multiplatforms, isn't that crazy of an idea.

Means we would be looking at the capabilities of a 280x ish or 770 as a more accurate representation of at least the PS4.