Ertman

Are you drunk?!?… you can’t be serious. I am not going to deny the fact that it’s too old for modern gaming, but to say it was never a gaming card is surprising from a member of the forum. The PS4 pro has a better gpu (like one step up) but slower cpu, and you arenot playing modern games on that either. I think the real benefit of the PS4pro is going to be that the games were tailored to it, so the experience should be pretty easy going.

Its not too dissimilar to the hDDs on the 360, and its actually interesting functionality.With the previous Gen and the PS5, it requires opening the console and installing the drive that would likely require a format and reinstall, unless previously in that particular system. The expansion storage cards can be taken to other consoles (such ans a friends house, or other family members) and you sign and play using the games on that card. You can't really just force people to format every time they switch consoles, kind of defeats the purpose of the expansion storage. the proprietary form factor sucks, but there isn't even a consume standard for that kind of storage. It's not too dissimilar to the hDDs on the 360, so there's definitely a functionality and DRM aspect to it along with the $$$.

Don’t forget they Spent nearly $150 to save $200, but didn’t even do that. I get it, the proprietary storage is BS, but it’s hard to blame MS for wasting your $145, that’s on you. You can blame them for the high cost of storage though. I don't have a Series Xbox, but I always thought the add on storage was supposed to be like a storage/memory card hybrid, maybe allowing you to bring it to other consoles? The proprietary limitations might be a way to avoid hacks, etc? They were also probably trying to dumb it down for consumers. I think they should have had some kind of upgradable internal storage like the PS5 where it would wipe the drive and install system files on it.

Finally... not sure what that was so hard. Even with that gpu, which isn't any better than the ps4, without underclocking (and/or cutting cores), the total system power consumption will be quite a bit over the power budget. The SOC manufacturing cost increases easily outweigh the ssd cost to the manufacturer, so let's call tha even. Benefits of smaller production node. I am curious to why both console chose the low power cpu over the fx option, they were presented with both, I can't see the cost savings being that large? Maybe they got all glossy eyed over the 8core number?

This has already been addressed, multiple times. Nothing you say is hard together, its just either repetitive without substantiation, factually incorrect, makes little difference or is irrelevant. Its fascinating that you think that what you are saying is hard to understand. I think you have demonstrated that are you are not discussing this in good faith. All that was asked of you was to illustrate how spending $50-80 more will net the PS4 vastly superior performance in the CPU and GPU (as you complained about both), while keeping the power budget below 220 watts (around a 50% boost). Please provide hypothetical examples. Also remember, higher power consumption will also affect cooling design, and the PS4 was inadequate for for the 150watts of draw so that will need to factored in. My argument was that both consoles were a compromise to keep costs from ballooing out of control and to hit power target while being limited by the hardware offerings at the time. I could see the less IPC efficient Piledriver being used instead with 2-4 substantially underclocked cores, but you could easily run into power and thermal issues. The Piledriver chip would rely less on the multithreaded approach which was not easy to implement so it might have been a better performer, just not by much.

At least I am positing an argument, you just keep saying “cheap out” like a broken record, like it has any meaning. The very least you could do is provide anything substantive to support your point. It’s also weird to call product development budgeting a circular argument, it demonstrates a real lack of understanding and maturity. I would agree that the CPUs were trash, never argued otherwise, and it being trash does not contradict anything I have stated. Although I wonder how much the low power many core CPUs in console helped push towards an increase in multithreaded games.

I am not even saying my opinion couldn’t be wrong, but You’re really dug in here, and I don’t know of why. I have already tried to explain how that’s not “cheaping out”. Either you don’t understand or are too invested in an opinion which you can’t substantiate beyond repeatedly saying of “they cheaped out”.

Right, but that was because of them trying to hit price point as component prices were increasing, and we are still talking around $50 range. So they are spending $60-80 more on the console but are receiving a very large bump in comparable specs. This sounds like they benefitted from a more competitive PC space than investment into components themselves. If it weren't during a supply shortage the costs would be even closer. AMD developing Ryzen was a difference maker, along with releasing competitive performing gpus, with both components being relatively efficient. And let's not forget increasing the power budget. So your main argument is that they didn't cheap out because better parts were available at similar prices. I am not seeing the logic there.

Nope. You can claim they cheaped out, but they didn’t. The PS3 was a lesson for Sony in what not to do, they weren’t going to subsidize each console by hundreds of dollars, combined with the limitation of potential hardware on the market at the time. If you disagree, please provide a plausible alternative that meets the following criteria: - needs to be a SoC - needs to be inexpensive - needs to meet approximate power consumption requirements I think they could have gone with 2-4 cores using piledriver architecture instead but it was less efficient. Keep in mind the GPU might then be limited.

The PS4 was objectively the fastest console at launch. I don’t necessarily agree with the 4K tv market being the the reason, it think it was a variable though. MS did “cheap out” a bit, but Sony didn’t. A lot of it had to do with power and budget constraints. People forget that even the lowly launch consoles of the PS4 and the One could easily outperform similarly priced computers. Sourcing separate CPUs and GPUs wasn’t fiscally reasonable, and combining that with the power requirement meant they had to go with a SOC. Wasn’t a lot of options out there at the time that could keep up with modern gaming. AMD had ok gpus but their CPUs were power hungry and underperformed. Intel had great CPUs but garbage GPUs. Nvidia had no real cpu but a good gpu. Both companies had to make compromises without resorting to doubling the price of the console or using a 500+watt power supplies. They ended up going with a jaguar based cpu instead of fx based chip, and a mid tiered GPU. Not true. People have been clamouring for a pro model of the PS5 since the refresh. Why? I have no idea, it’s not worth it to me.

I too found it weird that the ATX is missing this option that the mAtx has. I do not disagree with HBA suggestion by you and @LIGISTX. I will see what I can do and this will provide more options. Thank you for the feedback about the necessity of ECC.

Looking to make a new home file/media server. I am hoping to add some other functionality such as VMs etc. My OS of choice will be Unraid which I already have a license for. I do not want or otherwise unwilling to invest in "proper" server motherboards. AM4 (spare cpu) B550 ? Many SATA ports, more than 6. To meet the above criteria, the best pricing for me in Canada is with the MSI B550m-vc or the B550-vc. They both have 8 built in SATA ports. I believe the ATX board is better rated, but apparently the mATX support ECC (unbuffered naturally). I do not know if ECC is needed for my use case or how well/poorly MSI has implemented support in these boards. These boards are similar to the VDH and APro ones. The only other board in this price bracket with 8sata is the Asrock X570 Phantom Gaming 4 ATX AM4 Motherboard Any helpful feedback would be appreciated. I do understand the more narrow

Do you really think people play tf2 for the loot boxes or conversely that people play the claw game for the excitement of using a joystick? I think the loot box complaints can be overrated, but at the same time agree it is overly prevalent and feeds on people's gambling desires too much.

Performance wise the PS5 is weaker than the Series X. As to your question, can you provide a few games that you would play together?

Not heard of a PS4 Pro? Sony at least had precedent. The switch is a hybrid model, does it upgrade like the regular console or does it upgrade like a handheld. If regular console, Nintendo has not done a "Pro" version before. If like a handheld, then maybe, it's complicated.

It depends on whether you think “gamers” care more about games, or metrics like teraflops. N64 wasn’t a failure and the cartridge was fine. The mini disc thingy was also not a factor in the GameCube’s relatively lack of success. Specs do not drive the sales of those games. Also, specs don’t usually equal sales. There are plenty of companies including Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Sega, Atari, etc.that disagree with how “simple” it is.

You’d think there would be some kind of latency penalty if you did.

It's not "cheap" but it seems like you should get an AppleTV.

I see your point, I believe Sony might be doing something, doesn't mean Microsoft is/isn't. If it were to happen, Iam not convinced the upgrade will be like it was for the One to OneX. You can't always be waitin for the next console release, unless you know something is happening it could be years.

Will take a stab at this, but take it with a grain of salt as I am a fairly average consumer. Most basic displays have/had locked refresh rates, an do not change regardless of the devices attached. You could adjust the refresh rate, but it would just hold the image longer on the display until a new frame is delivered from the host device, it would not change with the content. As new frames arrive, they will be drawn immediately resulting in frame tearing. Higher refresh displays just have more screen witted per second and can lead to "smother" gameplay experiences. Newer technologies provide options like variable refresh rates and the "refresh rate" is the upper boundary. The purpose is to provide a "cleaner" image for the user by preventing frame tearing among other benefits.

I am one of those people who dislike mariokart wii. it's mainly the computer in the multiplayer, sucks the fun out of it.

It is possible

If you watched the video then you’d know those were the savings he got without trying to get the best deal, he was just trying to get a product for video, so haggling wasn’t needed. Some of these cards can be had for ~50% of retail or even less, does that change your perspective? Still a gamble either way.

On topic - where can one find values to compare the VRAM numbers from AiDA GPGPU testing?

single player > multi-player